quote:

---

The publisher of the Miami Herald newspaper has resigned amid a widening scandal involving journalists working for U.S. government-run radio stations that "promote democracy" in Cuba.

Jesus Diaz Jr. resigned after firing, then rehiring, two reporters at the Herald's Spanish-language sister paper El Nuevo Herald.

---

Miami Herald publisher resigns over Cuba scandal

The last straw was when the publisher, Jesus Diaz Jr., offered an amnesty for six reporters who had been in a conflict of interest and also reinstated two journalists fired for the blatant violation of journalistic ethics. Dias claimed in his letter of resignation that conflict of interest rules "had never been spelled out", were "ambiguously communicated, inconsistently applied and widely misunderstood".

On the contrary. Makes perfect sense to me. Anti-communism nullifies normal decency and ethics and allows anything for "the good of the cause". They just got caught, is all.

Maybe the US Government will grow a conscience and shut down that vomitorium, Radio Marti, and stop using the name of a revered Cuban hero for their nefarious schemes.

But I doubt it. They'll just re-package, change tactics a little, and re-market their hateful product. 'Cos that's what anti-communism freedom means. And they will let "the market" decide the matter.

I'd love to see Condi Rice, or her boss President Bush, face Cuban or serious US journalists on this one. But I doubt it will ever happen.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

Seriously. Cuba would be happy with more trade and other relations with the US. The country is strong enough to do so. The US policy is an ignorant one, that hurts what should and could be friendly relations between countries that, despite their differences in size, have much in common. [i]The US government has instituted the embargo, through Democratic and Republican regimes, for almost 50 years. Why?

I say it is anti-communism. And it is no straw man. It costs lives.

The US, after WW2, assisted the economic development of both Japan and "Western" Europe. This "assistance" created the foundation for economic rivals in the future. [Our present] Unless you are going to assert some sort of "sea change" in US foreign policy between that time and now, your thesis that an "independent" Cuba is the motivator of US foreign policy contradicts what the US did in relation to both Japan and "Western" Europe after WW2 with the Marshall Plan and so on. I would argue that it was anti-communism, pure and simple, that was the key motivator to understanding the US policy at that time.

quote:

---

FM: If Castro called himself a communist but allowed his country to be raped by US corporations, all would be fine.

---

I've already noted that Cuba is willing, under certain conditions, to open economic relations with the USA. It is the US that is resisting normal trade and so on. This is a fact that is easily confirmed. However, if Cuba allowed the transnational and multi-national corporations to dominate that country's economic life then what that government "called itself" would be irrelevant. They could call themselves the Government of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. But the irrelevance of "what kind of government" existed in Cuba were US and other corporations to dominate the economic life of that country doesn't imply that "what kind of government" Cuba has right now is irrelevant.

quote:

---

I say it is anti-communism. And it is no straw man. It costs lives.

---

And yet the US now trades with Vietnam and has most favoured nation trading status with China. The fact is afer WWII there was a cold war brought about not so much by ideology, although that was the public sales pitch, but by competing super powers seeking to expand spheres of geo-political influence.

The support of Japan and the Marshall Plan were as much geared to establishing a beach head against Soviet expansion as resurrecting economies and markets.

quote:

---

However, if Cuba allowed the transnational and multi-national corporations to dominate that country's economic life then what that government "called itself" would be irrelevant.

---

Exactly.

quote:

---

But the irrelevance of "what kind of government" existed in Cuba were US and other corporations to dominate the economic life of that country doesn't imply that "what kind of government" Cuba has right now is irrelevant.

---

Only in terms of public consumption. "Cuba is evil because it is communist," is a simple message geared toward US public opinion. If Cuba was to allow market reforms, open elections, but still maintain an independence similar to that being developed by Venezuela and beyond the US sphere of influence, Cuba would still be ostracized by the US and be under threat.

quote:

---

I get the impression that perhaps you're just asserting a subsidiary thesis that "there is no such thing as communism/socialism". In that case, there would be no such thing as genuine anti-communism either. Both would be figments of the imagination, useful for propaganda purposes only. This seems self-evidently absurd.

---

Both exist, but for nation states to respond to political ideas as opposed to "interests", is absurd.

Cuba was not a communist state when the US first invaded that island under a pretext (the sinking of the USS Maine). At that time the US was invading to Liberate Cubans from the Spanish. After US intervention, Cuba adopted a constitution that included the Platt Amendment: "The amendment ceded to the U.S. the naval base in Cuba (Guantánamo Bay), stipulated that Cuba would not transfer Cuban land to any power other than the U.S., mandated that Cuba would contract no foreign debt without guarantees that the interest could be served from ordinary revenues, ensured U.S. intervention in Cuban affairs when the U.S. deemed necessary, prohibited Cuba from negotiating treaties with any country other than the United States, and provided for a formal treaty detailing all the foregoing provisions.

Later in 1901, under U.S. pressure, Cuba included the amendment's provisions in its constitution. After U.S. President Theodore Roosevelt withdrew federal troops from the island in 1902, Cuba signed the Cuban-American Treaty (1903), which outlined U.S. power in Cuba and the Caribbean. Tomás Estrada Palma, who had earlier favored outright annexation of Cuba by the United States, became president on May 20, 1902."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Platt_Amendment

And that was all before anyone had even heard of Castro.

And keep in mind Castro only declared a marxist state and drifted toward the Soviet Union after he was rebuffed by Washington.

"Fidel Castro insisted his ideology was, first and foremost, Cuban. "There is not Communism or Marxism, but representative democracy and social justice in a well-planned economy," he said at the time.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/244974.stm

The issue for the Americans is and always has been hegemony. Cuba exists outside that hegemony and that can't be tolerated.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

More to the point perhaps, Radio Marti [which is the subject of this thread, after all] "was established in 1983 by President Ronald Reagan, at the urging of Jorge Mas Canosa, with the mission of fighting communism." (Wikipedia) But President Reagan's xenophobic institution continued right through the "liberal" government of President Clinton and others.

Here's a thought: privatize Radio Marti and let Cuban-Americans in Florida finance their own station.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is not anti-Communism that motivates US policy towards Cuba. It is anti-Cuban independence. If Castro called himself a communist but allowed his country to be raped by US corporations, all would be fine.

---

So U.S. taxpayers spent trillions of dollars during the cold war to prevent independence movements from Nicaragua to Afghanistan and, coinkidentally, in the very same nations where Marxists were building schools and hospitals and basic infrastructure. In fact, I think the CIA operated on the basis of domino effect and fearing the spread of communism around the world. It was their raison d'etre for several decades.

Fidel went to Washington to plea for aid in re-building Cuba and redistrubuting land to the Cuban people. Nixon basically told Eisenhower that Fidel was a communist and that they couldn't work with him.

quote:

---

Declassified CIA, Notes on Meeting with the President Nixon on Chile, September 15, 1970

These handwritten notes, taken by CIA director Richard Helms, record the orders of the President of the United States, Richard Nixon, to foster a coup in Chile:

l in 10 chance perhaps, but save Chile!
worth spending
not concerned risks involved
no involvement of embassy
$10,000,000 available, more if necessary
full-time job—best men we have
game plan
make the economy scream
48 hours for plan of action

---

quote:

---

our Fidel on the other Fidel: Fidel went to Washington to plea for aid in re-building Cuba and redistrubuting land to the Cuban people. Nixon basically told Eisenhower that Fidel was a communist and that they couldn't work with him.

---

Yea, that would seem to contradict the drift of FM's contribution on Cuban history. I thought that as well but I didn't know where to look for a source.

quote:

---

So U.S. taxpayers spent trillions of dollars during the cold war to prevent independence movements from Nicaragua to Afghanistan and, coinkidentally, in the very same nations where Marxists were building schools and hospitals and basic infrastructure. In fact, I think the CIA operated on the basis of domino effect and fearing the spread of communism around the world. It was their raison d'etre for several decades.

---

Again, you are confusing propaganda for public consumption with state interests. Nicaragua is within the western hemisphere claimed by the US under the Munroe Doctrine. The US has invaded any number of Latin American nations in order to maintain hegemony over them. As far as Afghanistan is concerned, the US was involved in a game of geo-politics with the Soviets. By supporting Islamic insurgents they were able to weaken the Soviets within their own sphere of influence while creating a hostile regime right on their doorstep and giving succor to other Islamic separatist movements within the USSR.

quote:

---

Fidel went to Washington to plea for aid in re-building Cuba and redistrubuting land to the Cuban people. Nixon basically told Eisenhower that Fidel was a communist and that they couldn't work with him.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Why would he need US help to do that? He didn't get their help and yet he still redistributed land. Did he also ask them for help in nationalizing ITT?

---

It wasn't that simple at the time. I don't believe Fidel had aims of siding with the Soviets immediately after the revolution. The purpose of his visit to the states was to gain recognition as the legitimate leader of Cuba, and to open dialogue with Washington in a similar way that Ho Chi Minh tried to. When a federal government begins such a dialogue, there begins to exist documented evidence that they recognize the would-be leader in furthering that legitimacy. In Washington's case, it would have been helpful for Castro to have had some business ties with the pre-existing Bacardi rum or sugar oligarchy, or even the racketeering interests of Santos Trafficante, Meyer Lansky or Carlos Marcello. Instead, Fidel gave the Havana connection one-way tickets to Miami and even tipped off the FBI about the planned mobster pow wow in the Appalachians, which they fumbled, of course.

Fidel needed money and trade relations to build socialism in Cuba. He was mistaken for thinking that Eisenhower or Nixon would deal with him. Fidel began talks with the Soviets at some point after the cold U.S. reception.

And of course, the Nixon tapes have since revealed that Washington was paranoid about losing Latin America to domino effect. Luis Echeverria's Mexico was mired in poverty when he spoke about creeping socialism in Latin America via Cuba. He urged Nixon to promote capitalist investment in Mexico to stem the red tide. Imagine that the Soviets had have supplied the equivalent of Stinger missiles to the Sandinistas and Salvadoran guerillas as per the billions of dollars worth of weapons funelled to militant Islamists during the proxy war when Talibanization of Pakistan and Afghanistan ocurred.

quote:

---

Keep this in mind, the doctor and the madman didn't bomb Cambodia and VietNam to smithereens because of Monroe Doctrine.

---

Of course not as it is outside the immdiate US sphere of influence. But they did not do it to fight communism either. The war in Indo-China must be viewed in context of geo-political power. The US, by establishing proxy regimes in Korea, Vietnam, Thailand, and Cambodia, etc ... were attempting to outflank the Chinese within their own sphere of influence. Why do think the Chinese involved themselves in the Korean war?

The end result was the US mostly damaged their own interests and prestige while leaving the Chinese mostly unscathed.

To demonstarte further, the old Cold War logic and language fails in the context of Iran which is virulently anti-communist. So in order to meet the needs of public consumption, a new war has been branded: the war against terror or against Islamo-fascism whichever test markets best.

If you look at what is occuring today, the US has effectively surround Iran by occupying Afghanistan, and Iraq. The US also has forces in the Indian Ocean and air bases in Turkey.

quote:

---

FM: It is not anti-Communism that motivates US policy towards Cuba. It is anti-Cuban independence.

---

quote:

---

FM: It is not a matter of communism. Communism is a convenient straw man.

---

quote:

---

FM: The issue isn't trade. The issue is that Cuba steers an independent course free of US hegemony.

---

quote:

---

FM: Again, you are confusing propaganda for public consumption with state interests. Nicaragua is within the western hemisphere claimed by the US under the Munroe Doctrine. The US has invaded any number of Latin American nations in order to maintain hegemony over them.

---

So, the "state interests" of the USA is to maintain hegemony. To dominate. But hegemony, certainly as Gramsci used the term, means a dominance in the ideological field. The battle of ideas. The hegemon comes to dominate without necessarily using force. This is key in the concept of hegemony. Gramsci used the idea to explain how capitalism had such elasticity and ability to preserve itself.

Are you with me so far?

So, firstly, to say that the US is motivated by the intention to be the hegemon is to assert, above all, something in the realm of "propaganda for public consumption". They're trying to win people over to support of the existing socio-economic system, as I've noted, without the use of force. What could be more ideological? Isn't this anti-communism par excellence?

I mean, socialism as an ideology is, above all, a challenge to the hegemon. It is the assertion of an alternative. It is much more so than, say, a state-interventionist approach (Keynesianism, say) by a government in contrast to the current neoliberal economic and neoconservative political doctrine that emanates from Washington (and Ottawa) these days.

I don't know if you've noticed it but using the Monroe Doctrine to support your claim actually weakens the claim. Here's JFK on the Monroe Doctrine as it applied to Cuba in 1962:

quote:

---

John Fitzgerald Kennedy: The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it.

JFK, August 29, 1962.

---

The Monroe Doctrine is called upon here by the US President because the placement of missiles in Cuba was viewed by the US as outside interference in a US "sphere of influence". Kennedy makes specific reference to "the Communist menace" in his remarks. I suppose you can just keep claiming that this is all just "for public consumption" but then you better:

1. Stop using the concept of the "hegemon" since this is, most definitely about "public consumption" and,

2. Do a better job of explaining where it is that the "state interests" of the USA are truthfully and clearly expressed. After all, they can't be a secret from everyone. They would then be nobody's interests.

And no, just saying the US wants to be "the hegemon" begs the question.

The Wikipedia section on the Monroe Doctrine is interesting. Clearly, non-interference by European powers in "the Americas" is what was originally meant by then-President Monroe in his famous speech in December of 1823. This doctrine has a history and an evolution that is far from consistent over the nearly 2 centuries since Monroe's speech to Congress. And, importantly, the doctrine was somehow conveniently "forgotten" when, in the course of a dispute over tiny islands in the south Atlantic, the US sided with a European power (United Kingdom) against a state from the Americas (Argentina) which the US saw fit to recognize during the course of the Monroe administration in 1822 ( Monroe administration began to extend recognition to the new Latin American republics — Argentina, Chile, Colombia and Mexico were all recognized in 1822.) BEFORE Monroe made his speech.

If "anti-independence" was and is such a strong factor in US policy in the Americas, it seems rather odd that during the very administration under which the term "Monroe Doctrine" was invented the US would, nevertheless, recognize the "independence" of a whole set of states and governments.

quote:

---

So, the "state interests" of the USA is to maintain hegemony. To dominate. But hegemony, certainly as Gramsci used the term, means a dominance in the ideological field. The battle of ideas. The hegemon comes to dominate without necessarily using force. This is key in the concept of hegemony. Gramsci used the idea to explain how capitalism had such elasticity and ability to preserve itself.

---

Well, yes. If I can convince you to be subservient and grant me unfettered access to your resources, of course that is preferable. But where you won't grant such access, then force shall be used and I will never say I am attacking you to rob you. But I will argue to my domestic audience that I am acting to liberate you, or to liberate others, or to remove an intolerable threat, or to protect my people, or to stop an evil ideology that threatens world peace. And all have been used. By the United States. Was Hawaii communist when it was annexed? The Phillipines when they were invaded? Japan during the period of gun boat diplomacy? Was there any communist states in Latin America the first time the marines landed in the halls of Montezuma before trekking to the shores of Tripoli for "right and freedom"?

quote:

---

I mean, socialism as an ideology is, above all, a challenge to the hegemon. It is the assertion of an alternative. It is much more so than, say, a state-interventionist approach (Keynesianism, say) by a government in contrast to the current neoliberal economic and neoconservative political doctrine that emanates from Washington (and Ottawa) these days.

---

Read your Kennedy quote again:

"The Monroe Doctrine means what it has meant since President Monroe and John Quincy Adams enunciated it, and that is that we would oppose a foreign power extending its power to the Western Hemisphere, and that is why we oppose what is happening in Cuba today. That is why we have cut off our trade. That is why we worked in the OAS and in other ways to isolate the Communist menace in Cuba. That is why we will continue to give a good deal of our effort and attention to it."

The converse to that is the US is the sole power within the Western Hemisphere. It is the Hegemon and any threats to it will be dealt with by force. And every nation in the Western Hemisphere, but the US, is a foreign power. Canada is a foreign power and we are within the Western Hemisphere. But Canada poses no threat to US hegemony and in fact supports it.

"It seems rather odd that during the very administration under which the term "Monroe Doctrine" was invented the US would, nevertheless, recognize the "independence" of a whole set of states and governments."

Why? So long as those states know their place and accept the Hegemon, it is in the interests of the US to recognize them because as noted above, it is far better for them to voluntarily accept their status then to expend the cost of force.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
Why Costa Rica stands apart is because it does not dispute the Hegemon. It participates in so-called Free Trade agreements and allows its economy to be dominated by US interests. So does Canada.

---

It's Washington and Pentagon who've been doing all the disputing. Latin Americans simply wanted a few hospitals and schools building in their own countries. They stopped buying into the promise of an economic long run, ie anything better than corrugated tin roofs and a donkey tied to the fence while international mining and fruit companies extract the wealth from under their feet and pay workers subsistence wages.

And Costa Rica was a launch pad for southern contra fronts against the Sandinistas in the 1980's. Honduras, less of a showcase for neo-liberal economics, was the other staging nation used by paid mercenaries from all over Central America and the Caribbean in Uncle Sam's war waged on a poor country off its back doorsteps.

FM, there is no evidence that the Soviets were trying to extend political influence into Central or S. America during the dirty war years. But the reverse was true during operation Condor and the CIA's operation 'Cyclone' in central Asia. There is no evidence that the Soviets supplied weapons to the Sandinistas or Salvadoran rebels. There was, however, Soviet military aid reaching the NVA in Vietnam. The methods used by all of the contras, mujahideen and army and navy in VietNam were all very similar in that civilians and civilian infrastructure were targetted for destruction. The idea was to kill an idea by bombs, bullets, flamethrowers, rockets, stinger missiles and agent orange. And it was mainly schools and hospitals built by Marxists in Central America that were targeted by contra mercenaries, paramilitaries and right-wing death squads. Where does anyone think the Taliban and Asian proxy mercenaries learned to destroy schools in the 1980's and today ?. Rape and torture were common themes and methods for oppression to oppose popular social and political movements around the world. Gotta stem the evil tide.

We've had Canadian missonaries come back from Central America and Caribbean and telling us on CBC radio that they were targeted for death by bounty hunters and paramilitaries, the same one's that receive military aid from Washington and training in terrorismo at the School of the Americas, or WHINSEC nowadays.

In fact, U.S. capital is described as having been overtaken by European and Chinese investment as the main source of foreign capital driving the economy in our southern hemisphere. China has pledged to spend over a $100 billion dollars to develop sea ports and infrastructure in S. America to enhance trade with China. This is more aggressive than anything the Soviets were ever accused of doing close to this side of the ocean.

I believe Donald Rumsfeld announced increased aid for Latin America's militaries several months ago for reasons other than heading off foreign intervention in Central and South America. The perceived threat is indigenous to those countries and always has been. As it was during the years of dirty war, the people fully believe that schools for their children and health care for all are more realistic in the here and now rather than the neo-liberal economic long run experience from Argentina to Nicaragua and Mexico in recent years. Ultra rightists are deathly afraid that Latinos will decide on their own what it is they want. In fact, the thought of it happening terrifies them.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

See how easy it is to construct such an argument? There's no refuting it. I just say that the "state interests" of the US are fundamentally different from what Kennedy said, supposing I agree with your interpretation, and his remarks were for "public consumption". In fact, that is a typical approach of defenders of the status quo; they reverse cause and effect and attribute characteristics of causes to effects and vice versa.

As a sidebar, I should mention that Kennedy had the presumption of the "right of interference" in Cuba based on the embedded notion that Cuba was the instrument of influence of a European-like power [like some transmission belt of Soviet policy] which contradicted the historical Monroe Doctrine. The same argument is worthless today; there is no Soviet Union and therefore the Monroe Doctrine cannot be applied to Cuba based on Kennedy's "reasoning".

Let's leave that aside for the moment.

Going back to the issue - about whether it is anti-communism that motivates US policy to Cuba - you will have to address the unique regimen that applies to Cuba. There is no country in all of the Americas - indeed of all the world - that has such an astonishing repressive treatment by the US than the treatment of Cuba. Citizens of Cuba that leave that country, unlike citizens from ANY other country in Latin American, including Venezuela and other "independent" minded states that are not communistic, automatically get all sorts of unusual treatment including the automatic assumption that (the bulk of them) are refugees. This treatment doesn't apply to, say, someone from Haiti who tries to emigrate to the US. [The regimen has been relaxed somewhat. But this is still a useful point.] The list of "special measures" is endless as you very well know. This is because Cuba is a communist country. It's not just that these rules and measures don't apply to, say, North Korea or Viet Nam, but Cuba is close to the US and therefore such measures become important to help destabilize that country. I can't see how you don't get it.

If you don't distinguish between the treatment of Cuba and the treatment of other countries in Latin America by the US, because Cuba is a socialist country, then Cuba doesn't have any grounds to object to "special treatment" by the US government. Presumably, Cuba should just "suck it up" and shut up ... and opponents of US policy should treat Cuba no different from any other country in Latin America.

quote:

---

FM, there is no evidence that the Soviets were trying to extend political influence into Central or S. America during the dirty war years. But the reverse was true during operation Condor and the CIA's operation 'Cyclone' in central Asia.

---

Precisely, Fidel. Precisely. But that is my point. The reasons stated by the USA for violence against another nation within or without their sphere of influence is not credible under scrutiny. It is strictly for public consumption like WMDs in Iraq. The same goes for communism or terrorism or whatever ism is in vogue as an enemy this week.

It is empire building. The US maintains an Empire. N.Beltov can't understand that because he is so invested in Cold War rhetoric. It matters not a whit that that Cuba is communist. Cuba could be embracing Catholicism. Cuba is being punished for being outside the US sphere of influence and that is all. That is all. It is the same Empire that invaded Venezuela and is ratcheting up the rhetoric becuase that nation, too, has strayed beyond US influence and that nation is NOT communist.

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Presumably, Cuba should just "suck it up" and shut up ... and opponents of US policy should treat Cuba no different from any other country in Latin America.

---

I think the Yanks have menaced North Korea on a fairly constant basis, N. I don't know if they do the propaganda thing like with Radio Marti from the Keys. They've threatened N. Korea with nukes for over 35 years off and on, and menacing them with a military presence in S. Korea. And I believe it's because of these constant threats that Kim Jong Il has turned that country into a fortress and inwardly introspective. Mind you, there are a lot of countries that feel threatened by the west and don't resort to militarization of the country.

But the UN has stated that the U.S. has, and illegally, blocked humanitarian aid going to both Cuba and N. Korea. I'm not sure how often this has happened to either country, and it's likely that Cuba has suffered from mean-spirited maneuvering more often. I know the Yanks have diverted oil shipments going to Cuba from around the world with offers of more money than Havana was willing to pay. Lots of small-minded tricks up their sleeves over the years, and not to mention over 600 assassination attempts on Fidel's life leading up to Luis Posada Carriles' plan to murder Fidel in Panama.

And there were accusations from both countries that the U.S. waged secret biological and chemical warfare on their crops, livestock and citizens as well as out in the open economic warfare.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:
It is strictly for public consumption like WMDs in Iraq. The same goes for communism or terrorism or whatever ism is in vogue as an enemy this week.

---

Since at least 1917, the largest number of weekly ism's by far have been communism. As soon as anyone starts talking about nationalising natural resources anywhere in the world, you can bet your lucky penny that Washington gets its back up and CIA gets down to business. But you're partly right in that one doesn't have to necessarily be a Marxist-Leninist in order to decide that nationalising oil, for example, would be in the national interest and serving the greater good. Arab nationalists and secular socialists, for example, are probably just as high on the CIA's hit list as your regular everyday Marxian communist. Although socialist thoughts are much more diverse than their rigid conservative politics, traditionally we're the one's who get lumped together.

Like our Canadian missionaries have said before, they were labelled communists for wanting to help the poor in Latin America. It doesn't take much. Perhaps we should all just wear red triangular patches sewn to our lapels for all it matters to the hawks of the world.

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: Fidel ]

Whenever you dig between the lines of propoganda you quickly realise "freedom" is just a code word for "free enterprise" which gives them the ability to plunder the economy at will. Obviously Cuba is not a free enterprise state and has not been under Washington's influence since 1959, making them a double target for these imperialists.

Perhaps the best source is to allow Washington itself to state why they are so pissed at Latin America. It seems now even Argentina has entered their hit list:

quote:

---

Venezuela's Hugo Chavez has had sway over Latin America's smaller economies but could now eclipse the United States' influence over the third-largest economy, Argentina, two top former U.S. diplomats said on Tuesday.

"As a significant political and economic force in the region, Argentina is veering in the wrong direction and in the wrong company," said Clinton-era United Nations ambassador Nancy Soderberg.

Chavez, a self-styled socialist revolutionary, has wooed Bolivia, Nicaragua, Ecuador and Peru, but ties to Argentina -- which has two nuclear power plants and announced plans in August to complete a third one -- was the topic of the Latino Coalition lobby group's discussion: "Venezuela & Argentina: The Hemisphere's Troubling New Axis."

"While many are looking at nuclear developments in
Iran and North Korea, few are looking south of the border to Argentina," Latino Coalition chairman Hector Barreto said.

The former U.S. diplomats focused on how Buenos Aires might respond to Caracas, particularly in sharing nuclear know-how.

Calling Argentine President Nestor Kirchner a classic Latin American strongman, Noriega said the Argentine leader is unlike other beneficiaries of Chavez's largesse.

"This is a marriage of convenience," Noriega said. "He's been very good at manipulating this relationship as he has with the United States."

Soderberg, now with International Crisis Group research group, said the appearance of rapprochement between the two South American leaders sends a powerful signal elsewhere.

"We need to make sure Kirchner understands that any alliance to Hugo Chavez's attempt to play this modern day Bolivar role can be costly," she said.

"This new Venezuela-Argentina axis should serve as a wake-up call to the president and to Washington and capitals elsewhere in the world that once again democracy is at risk in Latin America," Soderberg added.

---

Now even Argentina is "a threat to demockracy". It was these tactics that were used to villify Castro and any other leader who stood up to Washington.

Sorry to disagree with some who I usually never do; but when the Amerikkkans themselves are moaning about lost influence being their primary concern it says a lot.

Back to the main issue, this is just a tip of the iceberg of the $5 million anually spent by Washington on "anti-Cuban advertising".

Judging by the ever increasing anti-Cuba, Venezuela and now surprisingly anti-Argentina articles this budget is only going to increase.

Another thing I find interesting is that even Lula
who has been a near classic lackey has come under attack with a corruption scandal mysteriously breaking out just before the vote (all still "under investigation" in the right wing candidate's home state of Sao Paolo of course).

Every country in Latin America is a target. As long as Fidel and increasingly Chavez remain defiant others will speak up too.

As an aside, did you know it is illegal for any American to receive TV Marti because it is deemed "propoganda" and the FCC disallows any propagnda from being broadcast to Americans?

Too bad no one uses this law against Fox and virtually every other corporate media source in our continent.

U.S. must be more relevant in Latin America: experts

[ 04 October 2006: Message edited by: a lonely worker ]

Paraguay hardens U.S. military stance

quote:

---

Paraguay's decision to refuse diplomatic immunity for U.S. troops and not to renew a military cooperation pact sparked debate Tuesday, with analysts calling the developments a blow to U.S. attempts to improve regional ties.

Foreign Minster Ruben Ramirez said Monday that Paraguay and Washington would not renew a defense-cooperation agreement for 2007 over the South American country's refusal to grant U.S. troops inside Paraguay immunity from prosecution by the International Criminal Court.

Michael Shifter, of the Inter-American Dialogue think tank in Washington, said the move shows the U.S. is losing influence in the region.

"My guess is there was a lot of pressure on the Paraguayans to fall more in line with Brazil and other Mercosur countries in terms of not having a special military relationship with the United States," he said. "I do think it's a further setback for the U.S. in terms of its influence and its objectives in the region.

The other members of the Mercosur trade bloc - Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay and Venezuela - have so far refused to grant immunity to U.S. troops. All four nations have in recent years elected leftist governments critical of U.S. policy.

---

Any bets on how long before we strat hearing about evil Paraguayans and alleged scandals start popping up?

With Fidel's health coming back it seems Latin Americans are feeling more comfortable in finally pushing for full independence.

quote:

---

Frustrated Mess: It is empire building. The US maintains an Empire. N.Beltov can't understand that because he is so invested in Cold War rhetoric. It matters not a whit that that Cuba is communist. Cuba could be embracing Catholicism.

---

I don't think you've really addressed my point about the special regimen that is applied to Cuba. When I had a look at some of the Cuba solidarity web sites recently that point became abundantly clear to me. Perhaps one can argue that the Cuban exile community in southern Florida skews US policy from what it might otherwise be. I don't think that is the whole story, however.

• imperialism
• feudalism
• colonialism
• predatory capitalism
• socialism

quote:

---

Fidel: Humanity has followed these general stages of development:

• imperialism
• feudalism
• colonialism
• predatory capitalism
• socialism

... I didn't list "barbarism" as a stage because that's about where we are now, a transition phase between the last two in the list.

---

There are those, like István Mészáros, who make the argument that it's either socialism or barbarism ... though I think it was Rosa Luxemburg who first used that expression. In any case, a very important point is that neither socialism nor barbarism is inevitable and, therefore, if you agree with the assessment of Mészáros and others then presumably you would agree that it is necessary to be active in the struggle for what you believe in. Some eco-Marxists like John Bellamy Foster seem to argue that it's either socialism ... or some environmental/ecological planetary disaster that would be worse than barbarism. Personally, I like Foster's formulation better. Call me a cheerful pessimist.

Socialism or Barbarism

I see, Fidel, that you've followed in the babble tradition of mis-using "imperialism" as a term. Mind you, you probably had to find something to replace slavery as a stage before feudalism - otherwise you'd be stuck with the ridiculous notion that human society vaulted from shared property of the ancient clans and gens right into feudal property, lords and serfs, without any intermediate stages.

Supplemental: An article by J. B. Foster and Brett Clark from MR in December 2004:

Empire of Barbarism

[ 06 October 2006: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

It's true that the voting block of the expatriate Cuban population in Florida is sufficient alone to make any serious candidate run for the US presidency keep the boot on Cuba.

But also Cuba has the misfortune to be a close US neighbor; it's a bad example for the world's only superpower to allow nations anywhere within its (ever expanding) sphere to have a self-directed economic path--let alone one next door. Of course, Cuba does not really succeed in its independent path because of the continuing crushing US embargo. Inflicting pain on a populace is not the same as the required subservient capitulation--but it will do as a necessary example to other nations in the region that independence will not be tolerated.

US activities in South America have been at a diminished level with its recent preoccupation in the Middle East, but I think you will see more activity in the near future.

N Beltov says:
" I don't think the cold war is really over as far as the long-term planners, especially those in the US government, are concerned."

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
In any case, a very important point is that neither socialism nor barbarism is inevitable and, therefore, if you agree with the assessment of Mészáros and others then presumably you would agree that it is necessary to be active in the struggle for what you believe in.

---

Thank you for the material, N.Beltov. Be active in the struggle, yes of course. And I think young people who see events like Live Eight rock concerts as being helpful need to be shown what they are really doing, which is being participant to sophist cow-towing to what are very powerful forces in the world and who have no intentions for helping poor African nations rise out of poverty. Because to do so to any real degree would be to undo cold war efforts to divide and conquer that continent and its people in weakening their resolve to strive for something better. You're a repository of natural wealth and cheap labour, and that's their role in the scheme of things. Whole nations of people must remain very poor so that a few can remain comparatively wealthier and immensely more powerful. Capitalism is as exploitive and domineering as imperialism in many respects. They refer to any attempts at living outside of empire and civilized society as barbarism while they practice barbarism themselves.

A friend of the family in England who passed on a few years ago actually remembered the work houses. When I was a lad, the old friend told me about going to the church and begging for "beef drippings" for him and a large family. What struck me about him was his mannerisms. He was grateful for everything and everyone around him. he couldn't stop saying thank you. I think I know why now. He lived before William Beveridge's social welfare reforms in Ingerland. England before Thatcher was paradise for him and his family, and everything was wonderful - couldn't have been better. I'm almost glad for him that he didn't live through Maggie's time.