Fidel: WHO WANTS TO BE IN THE GARBAGE DUMP?

My blog is mainly intended to be about Nicaragua. However, as readers will be aware, I post items about related themes, and also topics that are only remotely relevant to what is happening in our country.

Today I want to draw attention to another website – the Socialist Voice site – and to post Fidel Castro’s latest reflection which he dedicates to the necessary transition that should take place in the United States of North America with the coming departure of the Bush gang from power after the presidential race concludes later this year.

Fidel Castro's decision not to accept nomination for another term as president of the Council of State of Cuba has provoked an avalanche of commentary and debate in every corner of the globe. However, as many commentators have pointed out, he is not retiring or withdrawing from the liberation struggles of our time. He has chosen to focus on what he can now best contribute, his direct participation in the battle of ideas and ideological struggle against imperialism, and capitalist engendered exploitation and oppression. The battle for socialism.

Socialist Voice is a publication of Marxists active in the Canadian class struggle.

http://www.socialistvoice.ca/

They are known for their internationalism and particularly for their commitment to solidarity with Cuba, and with the Bolivarian and Bolivian revolution, support for the liberation of Haiti, and support for the global struggle for indigenous rights. The co-editors are Roger Annis (Vancouver) and John Riddell (Toronto). Managing editor Ian Angus also runs the much acclaimed Climate and Socialism website found at::
http://climateandcapitalism.com/

I am one of twelve contributing editors of Socialist Voice.

The latest issue is devoted to Fidel’s decision to decline nomination to the presidency of Cuba, and banner headlines his assertion that ‘My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas.’

The issue includes the following items, in addition to an editorial comment.

@ Fidel’s Message to the People of Cuban (February 18)

@ “Fidel’s Political Stature Praised Worldwide,” from the Cuban newspaper Granma (February 21)

@ Revolutionary Appreciation and Respect to Fidel Castro, a letter from the Democratic Socialist Perspective of Australia (February 19)

The editors also point readers to a pamphlet about the Cuban revolution Cuba Stands Firm! (PDF: 257 KB).

It collects articles by John Riddell and myself about current challenges facing the Cuban working class and campesinos as they struggle to defend and extend their revolution.

It is located at http://www.socialistvoice.ca/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/cubastandsfirm.pdf

Lastly, Fidel’s Reflection “WHO WANTS TO BE IN THE GARBAGE DUMP? is posted immediately below.

It can also be found at http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/discursos/2008/ing/f220208i.html

It is also available in many other languages at the Cuba government site and in Granma International at http://www.granma.cu/ingles/

Felipe Stuart
Managua


REFLECTIONS BY COMRADE FIDEL

WHO WANTS TO BE IN THE GARBAGE DUMP?

Today, by mere chance, I remembered that the OAS still exists, when I read a cable posted on the Internet which contained an article by Georgina Saldierna, published in La Jornada, titled “Insulza rules out the possibility of re-admitting Cuba into the OAS”. No one even remembered the OAS. Note how retrograde this line of reasoning is.

Yesterday, the Secretary General of the Organization of American States (OAS), Jose Miguel Insulza, dismissed the possibility of immediately re-admitting Cuba into this multilateral organization because there is no consensus on the matter among its members, among other reasons.

In this connection, Insulza remarked that, for full re-admission into the OAS, one of the requisites Cuba would have to meet is adhering to the norms of the organization, including the Inter-American Democratic Charter and the Convention on Human Rights.

If this isn’t comical enough, read Antonio Caño’s article, published in El Pais on February 21, 2008, titled “Cuba’s Isolation only Serves the Purpose of Perpetuating the Agony of the System.”

“One of the most respected voices among Cuban exiles, businessman Carlos Saladrigas (Cuba 1948) hopes that Fidel Castro’s resignation could represent “the open door for permanent changes” and asks the Cuban community in Miami and the Government of the U.S. to act “cautiously” and with a “spirit of reconciliation”, to avoid losing this opportunity.”

“Saladrigas, who is President of a small organization known as the Cuba Study Group, which is composed by other political associations and human rights organizations known as Consenso Cubano, has spent millions of his private funds in the last few years in order to plant the seeds for a modern and centrist alternative to the radical leadership that used to dominate the Cuban exile community in the U.S. In the leadership vacuum in which Miami found itself after the death of Jorge Mas Canosa, Saladrigas is a respected voice in intellectual circles and listened by the media and foreign diplomats.”

“During a phone conversation from the Dominican Republic, Saladrigas expressed his belief that (…) Cuba’s isolation only serves the purpose of perpetuating the agony which the regimen represents”.
“In his opinion this is the time for great hope, both for Cuban exiles, as well as for dissidents inside the island”.

“The exile community must help by stimulating the steps that will begin to take place in Cuba and by not rejecting them. Transitions are made one step at a time”.

“It is important”, says Saladrigas, “that the regimen loose its fear of the exile community, because the lesser the fear, the faster things will move along”. Change, in his opinion, is unstoppable (…)”

“There are a million Cubans in Florida with sufficient resources to revitalize the economy of the Island in very little time, given adequate conditions, which must be created both by the U.S. and in Cuba: by the U.S. lifting restrictions to U.S. citizens wishing to invest in Cuba, and by Cuba, legalizing private property and foreign economic activity.”

“Once these conditions have been achieved, according to Saladrigas, political reforms will follow automatically. The most urgent measures should be the release of all political prisoners. Once this has been done, and the door has been opened to investments, the exile community could become the biggest support fund that any political transition has ever known throughout history.”

The name Carlos Saladrigas rings a bell; it is a name I heard many times when, at 18 years old I was concluding my fifth and last year of high school. He was the candidate Batista had chosen at the close of the last year of his constitutional term. Before, he had been his Prime Minister. The Second World War was coming to an end.

The new Carlos Saladrigas now wants to buy us for peanuts! With the money in Miami, “the biggest support fund that any political transition has ever known throughout history.” This is something the United States has never achieved, not even with all of the money in the world.
The facts are quite different and they are evident to those who follow events in Cuba objectively.

An article by David Brooks, published less than 12 hours ago by Mexico’s La Jornada, titled “The United States relegated to mere spectator of Cuba’s political transition” employs arguments which ought to be emphasized.

Brooks notes that he does not cease to be amazed by how one of the smallest countries in the world obliges the political, business, media and academic leaders of the world’s most powerful nation to respond to its decisions of doing or not doing, changing or not changing, or simply leaving everything shrouded in mystery.

In the past 24 hours, he stresses, President George W. Bush, senior State Department and National Security Council officials, federal legislators, the presidential pre-candidates and other top-level political figures, political analysts and the main foreign policy institutions, all printed and electronic media, human rights organizations and others have responded to Fidel Castro’s decision of not running for another term in office.

“While a political transition is underway in Cuba, no one in the United States, according to Brooks, expects any changes to take place in the few months that remain of term of George W. Bush, the tenth U.S. president who promised to impose changes in Cuba only to reach the end of his term and see Fidel Castro still defending his country’s policy and defying the superpower.

“Once again, he adds, Washington and all of the experts were reduced to mere spectators and had to recognize that the transition is to be determined by Cuba and is not the result of the policy Washington has pursued for half a century.”

“He points out that Julia Sweig, an expert on the bilateral relations between the two countries and director of the Latin American program for the Council on Foreign relations underscored that the embargo and other restrictions, which have only served to limit U.S. foreign policy at this pivotal moment, should already have been lifted.

“Ex Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson,” Brooks writes, “General Collin Powell’s right-hand man and currently co-chair of the New America Foundation’s U.S.-Cuba Policy Initiative again remarked that this juncture is an opportunity to change the United States’ posture, admitting that ‘our Cuba policy is a failure’ and that no changes were likely under the current presidency. The presidential candidates and others should begin to analyze this policy, including obvious things like lifting travel restrictions and some aspects of the embargo, so that the next president can implement some changes.”

As Brooks points out, the New York Times echoes these arguments in today’s editorial, arguing that “the administration has gone out of its way to ensure that it has no chance of influencing events there. In the name of tightening the failed embargo, it has made it much harder for academics, artists and religious people to travel to Cuba and spread the good word about democracy (…).” The Times proposes putting Miami’s interests aside, even if it’s particularly difficult in an electoral year, to enter into direct communication with “Mr. Castro’s successors”.

“Following Castro’s announcement in Havana,” according to Brooks, “the United State’s political dynamic can also change. The three main presidential pre-candidates commented on the matter yesterday. Republican John McCain and Democrat Hillary Clinton repeated the old rhetoric that Cuba must show changes before Washington can consider changing its policy.

“Democrat Barack Obama –who, as candidate for Senate in 2003, was in favor of lifting the embargo— has now qualified his position, but he is the only one who has supported a relaxation of restrictions on travel and the sending of remittances to Cuba, stating, yesterday, that if there are signs of democratization on the island “the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo (…)”

According to the Wall Street Journal, “we have had a bad policy for nearly 50 years, for bad reasons that have nothing to do with Cuba” federal representative Charles Rangel, chair of one of Congress’ most influential committees, declared. Several other legislators regard this moment as a possible opening to promote changes in bilateral policy.

“The business sector,” he adds, “which for years has expressed its opposition to the blockade, could also see this as an opportunity to redouble their efforts to change U.S. policy, turning to the bipartisan support of legislators and governors who see the Cuban market as something more attractive than maintaining an ideological position aligned with a president and government that are increasingly discredited in Washington.

“Apparently, the transition in Cuba could cause a transition within the United States, according to the article. But perhaps Washington and Miami are more opposed to change than Havana.”

As the readers will appreciate, I have done some work as I await the historical decision of the 24th.

Now, I will go several days without putting pen to paper.

Fidel Castro Ruz
February 22, 2008
5:56 p.m.

At Toyota, a Global Giant Reaches for Agility

"That allows Toyota to deploy younger workers, often the temporary ones, who can work faster than their elders at lower wages. They earn about two-thirds of what permanent workers do, or as little as $10.50 an hour, with few benefits.

Said Mr. Ushio: “We have to adapt to the changing environment.” (snip)

}{}{}{

You don't say!

There is no secret to the methods described here to accelerate the rate of profit in Toyota's operations flung around the world. Marx and Engels anticipated and explained them theoretically. What is interesting to me is that the managers and experts driving this process forward make little or no effort to hide the real source of increased surplus value. It's a gloves off approach, like "We have to adapt the changing environment."

Like, we have to adapt to fate. The fact that the economic and political environment described is made by humans and can be changed by humans is still evaded and even denied - to admit that would open the floodgates to the kind of changing environment they least would want --the rise of class consciousness and a class-against-class strategy by workers to counter the ongoing assault on living and working conditions, and on the natural environment.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/business/worldbusiness/22toyota.html?em&ex=1203915600&en=01c6101596eff4c0&ei=5087%0A

February 22, 2008

At Toyota, a Global Giant Reaches for Agility

By MICHELINE MAYNARD

TOYOTA CITY, Japan — At Toyota’s training center inside its Motomachi assembly complex here, workers use golf balls to limber up their fingers before they learn new tasks on the factory floor.
Holding two balls in each hand, they try to make them revolve in opposite directions, which requires a surprising amount of concentration.
The exercises are just a small part of Toyota’s plan to search continually for ways to streamline methods to build its cars, breaking down the steps used in thousands of tasks on the assembly line in order to teach them to new employees and managers.
Toyota sees the training centers — one here, and another in Georgetown, Ky., as well as more planned for elsewhere in the world — as an important tool as it gears up for its next major phase of growth.
With plants in 27 countries, more new factories under construction and workers speaking languages that include Russian and Turkish, Toyota’s top executives are trying a difficult balancing act — replicating the company’s success and operating principles in other countries while ceding more control to these new outposts at the same time.
Such thinking represents not just a challenge of reconciling conflicting goals — to control and let go simultaneously — but also a fundamental shift for Toyota, where senior management jobs are held entirely by Japanese executives, and whose major operations, from engineering to design to strategic planning, remain based in this city about 200 miles west of Tokyo.
“It’s extremely important to have the same common Toyota Way infiltrated to employees in all corners of the world,” said Katsuaki Watanabe, the company’s president. “But on the other hand, in each corner of the world, in each region, there are inherent characteristics that need to be respected.”

For example, Mr. Watanabe has asked foreign managers to assess which tasks they can handle on their own, which they can handle with help from Japan, and which areas Japanese officials still need to supervise.

Toyota needs to act quickly. Next year, it expects to sell more than 10.4 million cars worldwide, double what it sold in 2000. At the same time, Toyota is under pressure to put an end to the recalls of the last three years that have damaged its reputation for bulletproof quality.

“As a global company, there are many, many things I believe Toyota has to do,” said Fujio Cho, its chairman. “We cannot go back to what we were in the past.”

Mr. Watanabe said that Toyota had learned, especially through experience in the United States, that it could not simply impose Japanese practices on workers in other countries. It also has learned it cannot spend decades gradually handing off responsibilities. “What took us 20 years is now concentrated down to five years,” Mr. Watanabe said.

John Paul MacDuffie, a professor at the Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania, said of Toyota’s new strategy: “This is about a greater maturity about globalizing and transferring knowledge.”

Toyota’s expectation that its sales will surpass 10 million next year would put it well ahead of General Motors, which is roughly tied with Toyota for the top spot in the global auto industry. (G.M. has not given its own global sales target, but its sales around the world this decade have grown an average of about 1.5 percent a year, while Toyota’s have averaged about 7 percent.)

Toyota’s sprawling organization includes American operations that have become a smaller version of the parent company, with a 51-year-old sales organization based in California. That entity oversees 1,300 dealerships, which are supplied with vehicles built in Japan and by plants in Kentucky, Indiana, Texas and, soon, Mississippi. Toyota also has a design center in California and another under construction in Michigan.

European locations are quickly gaining the same kinds of operations, run from a headquarters outside Belgium, and supplied by a plant in France that turns out the small Yaris cars 24 hours a day.

In China, however, Toyota’s production has long trailed other global auto companies because it hedged its bets with a modest venture that builds only a few thousand vehicles a year. It regrouped in 2003 in a deal with a major Chinese player, First Automotive Works, and Toyota is making plans, according to media reports, to build its first assembly plant there.

To be sure, Toyota is not alone in taking a global approach to its business. Ford Motor, which is reorganizing after billions of dollars in losses the last few years, is realigning its product development so that it uses the same underpinnings, or platforms, for most of its vehicles around the world.

Asked in December what company he viewed as a model, Ford’s chief executive, Alan R. Mulally, immediately cited Toyota. Meanwhile, G.M. has been on its own drive to share platforms among its operations in North America, Europe, Latin America and Asia, said a spokesman, Dee Allen.

“For all intents and purposes, our globalization is set,” Mr. Allen said. Using the same platforms “really is a natural progression as the world has become smaller, and products are being sold in a lot more places than they used to be,” he added.

But Toyota has a leg up on its American rivals, because it has spent decades leveraging its basic lineup in world markets.

Toyota sees teaching its production system in the new training center here as crucial to maintaining quality, and reducing the recalls that have plagued the company in recent years.

Such training is essential in places like China, where Toyota found that some of its newest employees had never driven the cars they were hired to build.

At Motomachi, more than 3,000 tasks on the assembly line have been translated into video manuals that are displayed on laptop computers above 30 simulated workstations, situated where their functions would be carried out inside the factory.

The videos show everything from the correct way to hold a screw to the best way to hold an air gun so that a worker’s hand will not tire in a few hours.

This month, workers from Toyota’s plant in Thailand took part in training required for jobs in their plant’s paint shop. Listening as an interpreter translated from Japanese into Thai, the workers were shown how to bend their knees and spray a water gun across a clear panel of Plexiglas.

Their first goal was to learn to aim the spray between two lines of tape across the Plexiglas, representing the side of a car. A second exercise was intended to teach them not to use the spray too liberally by capturing the water sprayed against the glass in three containers, which bore lines marking 200 grams. If the water rose above the line, the worker was spraying too much.

The walls of the production center bear flags from various countries and states where Toyota has factories, including the Czech Republic, West Virginia and Brazil. Before they leave, workers sign their home flag, like the one from China that is nearly covered with signatures.

But new ideas do not apply only to the trainees. At Toyota’s Tsutsumi plant, which builds the hybrid-electric Prius, Toyota has overhauled the way it delivers parts to the assembly line. The top floor of the plant, built in 1970, has been emptied and turned into a sprawling parts warehouse.

Workers on the plant floor used to choose the parts they needed to install on each vehicle from bins next to the assembly line. Now, a crew of workers upstairs loads the required parts into containers. The bins are placed inside the empty car bodies. Workers need only reach for the appropriate parts. After use, the bins are collected and sent upstairs to be refilled. The process will be part of the operation at Toyota’s new plant in Mississippi. It has cut Tsutsumi’s labor costs by 20 percent, said Osamu Ushio, general manager for the final assembly division, for two reasons.

First, cutting out the need to pick out parts shortened the training time for temporary workers, who make up one-third of the work force at Tsutsumi.

Second, older Japanese workers who are guaranteed lifetime employment by Toyota but can no longer handle the physical tasks of building cars can shift to loading containers.

That allows Toyota to deploy younger workers, often the temporary ones, who can work faster than their elders at lower wages. They earn about two-thirds of what permanent workers do, or as little as $10.50 an hour, with few benefits. Said Mr. Ushio: “We have to adapt to the changing environment.”

Italy Follows Trail of Secret South American Abductions

Victims of Operation Condor, their families, and allies on the international left denounced these crimes at the time, but all the so-called supporters of human rights aligned with the establishment either remained silent or dismissed those trying to expose the outrages.

Now it is fashionable for the New York Times and ilk to air items like this.

Let us accept from them gracefully what they allow into print, but not forget the long cover up in which they were fully complicit.

Felipe Stuart C.
Managua

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/22/world/americas/22condor.html?ref=americas

February 22, 2008

By ALEXEI BARRIONUEVO

BUENOS AIRES — In an unusually sweeping investigation, Italian authorities are seeking to prosecute former top officials in seven South American countries for their roles in a secret operation in the 1970s and 1980s by the region’s security forces to crush left-wing political dissent.

The extraordinary breadth of the seven-year Italian investigation, into what is known as Operation Condor, has drawn in countries formerly not thought to have been deeply involved in the shadowy program, particularly Peru. It has also agitated political establishments up and down the continent.

The investigation and recently declassified documents, which were reviewed by The New York Times, suggest a complicit role of the United States in Condor’s often-deadly operations, some of which American officials knew about before but did little to stop.

In late December, Judge Luisianna Figliolia in Rome issued arrest warrants for 140 former officials from Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Paraguay, Peru and Uruguay, seeking to prosecute them in connection with the disappearance of 25 Italian citizens.

The Condor countries helped one another locate, transport, torture and ultimately make disappear dissidents across their borders, and even collaborated on assassination operations in Europe and the United States.

In an operation that historians call reminiscent of the United States’ modern terrorist rendition program, the Condor countries sometimes used an allied intelligence network to track and transport terrorism suspects to a third country for interrogations.

“This is the most ambitious look yet at Operation Condor,” said Reed Brody, a lawyer with Human Rights Watch in Brussels. “I don’t know of any other case that has taken on so much.”

While Argentina and Chile are well known to have been at the center of Operation Condor, the arrest warrants have forced new soul-searching in Peru and a reconsideration of its involvement.

The 250-page indictment issued by Judge Figliolia, part of which was reviewed by The Times, names four former Peruvian officials, including Peru’s dictator from 1975 to 1980, Gen. Francisco Morales Bermudez, and his military commander, Pedro Richter Prada.

The arrest orders for the Peruvians deal indirectly with the June 1980 abductions of four leftist rebels, called Montoneros, in Lima by a joint group of security agents loyal to General Morales Bermudez and members of Argentina’s military police.

At the time, Peru had largely avoided the guerrilla movements and brutal counterinsurgencies that had roiled Argentina, Chile and Uruguay, where Operation Condor was most active.

But in June 1980, in the last two months of General Morales Bermudez’s dictatorship, members of Argentina’s 601 Battalion, a special army intelligence unit, went to Peru to track down Montoneros members bent on overthrowing Argentina’s junta.

The Argentine agents had captured one member of the group, Federico Frías Alberga, in Buenos Aires, and took him with them to Peru to help identify his comrades in a sting operation.

On June 12, 1980, Argentine and Peruvian intelligence agents took undercover positions in a park in Lima, the Peruvian capital, dressed as salesmen, street artists and transients. After Mr. Alberga exchanged a coded message with one Montonero, the agents pounced.

They arrested her and two others, Noemí Giannotti de Molfino and Julio César Ramírez, according to a 2004 book by a Peruvian journalist, Ricardo Uceda.

The Argentines later tortured them at a Peruvian military installation, according to the account by Mr. Uceda, who interviewed a Peruvian Army intelligence agent who witnessed the torture sessions.

One week later, on June 19, according to the declassified documents, James J. Blystone, a political officer in the American Embassy in Buenos Aires, described in a memo to his boss what was to happen next.

Mr. Blystone told his boss, Ambassador Raul H. Castro, that an Argentine intelligence source had informed him that the four Montoneros would be held in Peru and then “expelled to Bolivia” and sent on to Argentina, where they would be “interrogated and then permanently disappeared.”

Mr. Castro wrote to the secretary of state’s office in Washington that an Argentine source had confirmed the abductions and a plan to take the captured Montoneros back to Argentina.

But the news of the arrests found its way into the Peruvian media, and because of the public outcry, the plan to return the rebels to Argentina was dropped, according to a copy of Mr. Castro’s memo, which is among the declassified documents obtained by the National Security Archive, a private research institute and library.

In a phone interview, Mr. Castro, now 91, said he recalled “being concerned” about the Montoneros operation. But, he said, “I don’t recall what action, if any, we took at the time.”

The level of Peru’s involvement in Operation Condor was debated heavily in American intelligence circles, he said. “We couldn’t agree, the Foreign Service and Washington and the intelligence services, if Peru was involved,” Mr. Castro said. “I thought they were very much involved. It seemed very clear after those Montoneros were taken to Bolivia.”

Mr. Blystone, also reached by phone, said American officials should have lobbied harder for the prisoners’ release. “I got all that information and I passed it on, and we could have done something,” he said. “But we dropped the ball, let’s face it.”

A month later, the scandal still had not died down when Mr. Castro met with the Argentine Army commander, Lt. Gen. Leopoldo Galtieri. Mr. Castro prodded him so much about the Montoneros that General Galtieri waved his hand and said, “Enough is enough,” according to Mr. Castro’s report to Washington.

Despite the publicity, the Argentine security agents went ahead with their plans, which apparently included taking Mrs. Molfino to Spain. On July 21, 1980, she was found dead in a Madrid apartment. The three other Montoneros were never found.

Peru is already reeling from the continuing human rights trial of Alberto K. Fujimori, who was president for a decade until 2000, and officials there have been quick to defend those accused in the Italian case.

President Alan García viewed the arrest warrants as an affront to Peru’s sovereignty. He described Judge Figliolia’s move as an attempt to depict Peru as a “little banana republic” and offered his support to General Morales Bermudez.

The Italian investigation deals not only with individual cases involving Italian citizens but also with the broader responsibility for Condor’s cross-border kidnapping and torture operations, according to two people in Italy involved in the case.

Italy claims jurisdiction because it believes crimes occurred against its citizens. But only one of the accused, a retired Uruguayan Navy officer, was taken into custody in Italy, and he was later released for what a magistrate cited as a lack of evidence. It seems unlikely that the South American countries will go through with extraditions.

Remigio Morales-Bermudez Pedraglio, a son of General Morales Bermudez, the former dictator, said in an interview that the case was “a disgrace.” He said his father would agree to be extradited to Italy only if Peru’s Supreme Court found merit in the Italian charges. Under Italian law, he can be tried in absentia, however.

General Morales Bermudez, now 88, took power in 1975 in a coup but is still admired by many Peruvians for allowing presidential elections in 1980.

In an interview with the Peruvian journalist, Mr. Uceda, in 2000 he acknowledged that he had given the order to capture the Montoneros, following the advice of Mr. Richter, his military commander. “We couldn’t give ourselves the luxury of having subversives on the loose in the country during the transition of power,” he said.

In statements to the Peruvian media, General Morales Bermudez rejected the assertion that Peru was part of Operation Condor, but said he was prepared to clarify the events in question.

Simon Romero contributed reporting from Caracas, Venezuela, and Andrea Zarate from Lima, Peru.

Nicaragua: Banqueros amenazan con caos si no consuman robo

Managua. Agencia ACAN–EFE. febrero 19, 2008

http://www.radiolaprimerisima.com/noticias/general/25226

La Asociación de Bancos Privados de Nicaragua (Asobanp) y las dos principales cámaras empresariales del país advirtieron el lunes de "serios daños" en la economía si no se honra el pago de los bonos conocidos como Certificados Negociables de Inversión (CENI).

"Estas decisiones provocan serios daños a la institucionalidad, al estado de derecho y a la estabilidad económica del país y sus ciudadanos", aseguró Asobanp en un comunicado, suscrito también por el Consejo Superior de la Empresa Privada (Cosep) y la Cámara de Comercio Americana-Nicaragüense (Amcham, por sus siglas en inglés).

Las tres asociaciones privadas se refieren a una resolución del juez quinto de lo penal de audiencia de Managua, Julio César Arias, que ordenó al Banco Central de Nicaragua y al Ministerio de Hacienda y Crédito Público suspender el pago de los CENIS, que son títulos valores, a favor de bancos privados, con base en una solicitud de la Fiscalía General de la República.

El fiscal especial Armando Juárez solicitó a ese juez suspender el pago, honra y obligación de los CENIS por parte del Estado, hasta que concluyan las investigaciones sobre ese escándalo financiero.

La emisión de estos instrumentos de deuda interior ocurrió durante el gobierno del presidente Arnoldo Alemán (1997-2002) y dejó al Estado una deuda de entre 350 y 400 millones de dólares.

Los bonos fueron emitidos entre 2000 y 2002 para supuestamente para salvar al sistema financiero de un pánico, tras la quiebra de cinco bancos: el Banco Sur, Intercontinental Bank (Interbank), Banco Mercantil (Bamer), Banco del Café (Bancafé) y Banco Nicaragüense de Industria y Comercio (Banic).Las instituciones que adquirieron los CENIS fueron el Banco de Finanzas (BDF), el Banco de la Producción (Banpro) y el Banco Centroamericano (Bancentro), según auditorías efectuadas por la Contraloría General de la República (fiscalía de cuentas).

Pero el estado pagó más del doble de lo que realmente se necesitaba, más los respectivos intereses, y además, los banqueros reclasificaron a su antojo la deuda de los clientes de los bancos quebrados, recibiendo por ella además de los CENI, la cancelación de los morosos.

La Fiscalía investiga quiénes se beneficiaron de las carteras y activos de los bancos quebrados.

Las asociaciones privadas advierten que estas acciones "aumentan la inseguridad jurídica que vive el país y afectan la imagen de Nicaragua, limitando seriamente la inversión privada interna y externa".

Además, deterioran la calificación de riesgo país, restringen la oferta de crédito o la encarecen, provocan un aumento en la tasa de los préstamos, afectan negativamente la producción y el crecimiento económico.

Asimismo, afectan la credibilidad del Estado, dificultan la colocación de deuda por parte del Banco Central de Nicaragua (BCN), reduce la capacidad del gobierno de honrar sus obligaciones mediante la emisión y colocación de títulos valores y disloca la capacidad del BCN para combatir la inflación.

La banca privada y las dos cámaras consideran que estas acciones "tomadas en forma injustificada solamente causan perjuicios al país, por lo que instamos a nuestras autoridades a la reflexión acerca de la gravedad de estos eventos, para evitar que en el futuro se presenten situaciones similares".

Las asociaciones pidieron a las autoridades tomar en cuenta las repercusiones que conlleva el no honrar sus obligaciones de pago. El BCN pidió al juez Arias, el viernes pasado, declare nulo ese fallo que ordena suspender el pago de los CENIS, sin respuesta aún.Ese mismo día el presidente de Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega, confirmó que su gobierno va a pagar y honrar la deuda originada por los CENIS, pero que ese compromiso tiene que ser renegociado con los banqueros.En el presupuesto de este año figura una partida por más de 400 millones de córdobas (unos 21 millones de dólares) para el pago de los CENIS.

- fin -

Bush and ExxonMobil v. Chavez

This is a very useful and educational review of the issues behind the conflict between big US oil and the Bolivarian revolution. It is taken from Stephen Lendman's blog, one I often turn to for information, analysis, and just plain facts about current news.

It is at http://sjlendman.blogspot.com/

Felipe Stuart
Managua

by Stephen Lendman

Since the Bush administration took office in January 2001, it's targeted Hugo Chavez relentlessly. From the aborted two-day April 2002 coup attempt to the 2002-03 oil management lockout to the failed 2004 recall referendum to stoking opposition rallies against the constitutional reform referendum to constant pillorying in the media to funding opposition candidates in elections to the present when headlines like the Reuters February 7 one announced: "Courts freeze $12 billion Venezuela assets in Exxon row." Call it the latest salvo in Bush v. Chavez with ExxonMobil (EM) its lead aggressor and the long arm of the CIA and Pentagon always in the wings.

EM temporarily won a series of court orders in Britain, New York, the Netherlands and Netherlands Antilles to freeze up to $12 billion of state-owned PDVSA assets around the world. Hugo Chavez called it Bush administration "economic war" against his government. Energy Minister and PDVSA president, Rafael Ramirez, said it was "judicial terrorism" and that "PDVSA has paralyzed oil sales to Exxon (and) suspend(ed) commercial relations" in response to actions it "consider(s) an outrage....intimidating and hostile."

PDVSA's web site went further. It explained that the company will "fully honor existing contractual commitments relating to investments in common with ExxonMobil on the outside, reserving the right to terminate those contracts" under terms that permit. This likely refers to a Chalmette, Louisiana joint venture between the two companies that refines 185,000 barrels of oil daily into gasoline. It also reflects a commitment to supply 90,000 barrels of oil daily to Exxon that continues unaltered.

EM sought the injunctions ahead of an expected International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID) arbitration ruling. It's over a compensation claim owed Exxon after Venezuela nationalized its last privately-owned oil fields last May in the Orinoco River region. PDVSA now has a majority interest, Big Oil investors have minority stakes, but the government offered fair compensation for the buyouts. Chevron, UK's BP PLC, France's Total SA and Norway's Statoil ASA agreed to terms and will continue operating in the country.

ExxonMobil and ConocoPhillips balked, and it led to the current action. In Exxon's case, it refused a generous settlement offer for its 41.7% stake, but that's the typical way this bully operates. The company is the world's largest, had 2007 sales topping $404 billion, it's more than double Venezuela's GDP, and it places EM 25th among world nations based on World Bank GDP figures.

It's too early to predict what's ahead, but one thing is sure. As long as George Bush is president, he'll go after Chavez every way possible with one aim in mind - to destabilize the country and remove the Venezuelan leader from office. Once again, battle lines are drawn as the latest confrontation plays out judicially, economically and geopolitically. The stakes are huge - the most successful democracy in the Americas and the "threat" of its good example v. the world's most powerful nation and biggest bully.

The next judicial hearing is on February 22, but it's unclear where things now stand with Exxon and the Chavez government having different views. The oil giant claims PDVSA's assets are frozen, but on February 9 Minister Ramirez denied it saying: "They don't have any asset frozen. They only have frozen $300 million" in cash through a New York court. On February 13, it heard the case, and to no one's surprise affirmed the freeze until a final arbitration settlement is reached. PDVSA has no "assets in that jurisdiction (or in Britain) that even come close to those" billions that are about 16 times the value of Exxon's Venezuelan $750 million investment.

Ramirez also added that EM's action is a "transitory measure" while PDVSA pressed its case in New York and will do it again in London. The current status has no "affect on our cash flow (or) operational situation at all." Exxon wants to undermine the government and "create a situation of anxiety in the country, a situation of nervousness."

Ramirez expressed confidence that his government will prevail. It's arbitrating fairly, offered just compensation, and that in the end may defeat the latest Bush administration assault against the right of a sovereign state to its own resources. He also explained that Exxon violated ICSID arbitration proceedings by seeking separate court orders, and that PDVSA is considering a response. It may sue the oil giant for damages that caused Venezuela's dollar-denominated bonds to record their biggest drop in six months on the prospect of a long legal battle.

On February 8, PDVSA declared its position on its web site to put the facts in context, clarify the situation, and dispel how the dominant media portrays it ExxonMobil's way. Below is a summary.

The company states it's been "in arduous level agreements and negotiations with" its joint venture partners - "Total, Statoil, (Italy's) ENI, ConocoPhillips, Petrocanada, (China's) CNPC, Petrochina, (Venezuela's) Ineparia, British Petroleum (and) Exxon Mobil." The US giant is the "only case in which we have a clear situation of conflict" so it was "envisioned that these strategic issues....could be settled in international (arbitration) tribunals." It appears that agreement has been reached or "in the process of agreeing" with every company (including ConocoPhillips) except ExxonMobil, and the situation with them is this: "this company has not complied with the terms of arbitration....and introduced an arbitration against the Republic (in) the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID).

"PDVSA awaits its ruling "which, we are confident, will promote the interests of the Republic." In addition, Exxon sued PDVSA. As a result, "we see a clear position (of this company) to go against the sovereign interest of an oil-producing country such as Venezuela," deny its legal right to its own resources, and get overt US backing for it from State Department spokesperson Sean McCormack saying: "We fully support the efforts of ExxonMobil to get a just and fair compensation package for their assets according to the standards of international law" that Washington defiantly trashes.

PDVSA's statement explained that the national media have "such ignorance of the situation (by reporting that) our company has (assets of) 12 billion dollars (frozen and) that is completely untrue....we do not have any court decision that is final with respect to all of our assets. We have an interim measure in a court in New York, we have the right - and so we are going to....respond. This is a transitional measure while (PDVSA) presents its case; defend(s) ourselves....defend(s) the interests of the Republic and we are confident we will remove this measure."

Exxon also got injunctions in London and the Netherlands. "I must report we have no assets in those jurisdictions...."The same status is true for the Netherlands Antilles" where another injunction was gotten.

"We are no longer surprised (about) the attitude of ExxonMobil, as it is the typical American transnational company which....historically has tried to attack the oil-producing countries and impose their views on the management of (their) national resources....On behalf of workers and our oil industry, we are not going to (be) frightened, intimidated, or retreat in the sovereign aspirations of our people to manage their natural resources.

" We must "warn our country because they could continue this type of action....the position of our people and our Government is firm in defence of our decisions." We will defend our interests. We won't "yield to this (action), we will defeat them (on the) ground(s) that (are) raised....

"In a February 12 interview, Ramirez repeated Hugo Chavez's message two days earlier on his weekly Sunday television program, Alo, Presidente: "If you end up freezing (our assets) and it harms us, we're going to harm you. Do you know how? We aren't going to send oil to the United States. Take note, Mr. Bush, Mr. Danger....I speak to the US empire, because that's the master: continue and you will see that we won't send one drop of oil to the empire of the United States....The outlaws of ExxonMobil will never again rob us....If the economic war continues against Venezuela, the price of oil is going to reach $200 (a barrel) and Venezuela will join the economic war....And more than one country is willing to accompany us in the economic war.

"PDVSA spokesperson, Eleazar Diaz Rangel, then said on Latest News on February 12 that "we are ready" to stop supplying oil to the US if their hostile actions continue. He explained that Washington is waging economic war, and Venezuela is seeking to develop new customers like China. He added that the cash flow of the company is sound because it's based on daily crude oil sales.

On February 12, Venezuela's deputy oil minister, Bernard Mommer, said on state-owned Venezolana de Television that Exxon knows it will lose in arbitration and its "maneuver represents a way to intimidate" other countries against standing up to its will. It's trying to "create panic and anxiety with the banking and the oil sector."

Venezuela is America's third or fourth largest oil supplier after Canada, Saudi Arabia and at times Mexico. It accounts for between 10 to 12% of US imports and averages around 1.2 million barrels a day, sometimes as much as 1.5 million. PDVSA's assets total around $109 billion, according to its web site. It calls itself "the most creditworthy company in Latin America" which is likely considering its enormous oil reserves and at their current elevated prices.

Views from the US Media

It's no surprise how the US media portray Chavez and the Exxon dispute. Bloomberg.com called it his way to use the "Exxon Battle to Stoke Anti-US Sentiment" as though he's the aggressor and poor USA and giant Exxon his victims.

Then, there's the Washington Post's editorial view on February 15. It's astonished that "Mr. Chavez himself threatened to cut off exports of crude oil to America" over Exxon's having "moved to freeze" its assets. It lamentes how "regrettable" the US "voracious consumption of oil" is because it "underwrites Venezuela's Chavez regime....If the Bush administration were really as committed to overthrowing Mr. Chavez as Mr. Chavez claims (it ought to boycott) Venezuelan oil (to) devastate" its economy. "Two cheers for ExxonMobil. In standing up to Mr. Chavez through 'peaceful, legal means,' it has once again exposed the hollowness of the anti-imperialism with which he justifies his rule.

"The Chicago Tribune was just as hostile by asking "Where is the king of Spain when we need him?" Chavez "says the 'bandits' at Exxon are trying to rob Venezuela. From where we sit, it looks like the other way around.

"Then there's the Houston Chronicle in Exxon's home city. It blasted Chavez for "making a fool of himself on the floor of the UN General Assembly last year," called him a "clown," and said "his buffoonery is neither amusing nor benign." Ignoring Exxon's shenanigans in cahoots with Washington, it stated that Chavez "was in full bluster (and that he) and his henchmen (were launch(ing) a war of words in response (that is) little more than political theater, sound bites for the loyalists back home, and You Tube fodder abroad.

"This type bluster gets supplemented with outrageous comments about how Chavez "seized power," shuts down his opposition, control's Venezuela's media, took over American oil fields, is a "destructive menace" to the region, and even worse a communist and a dictator with a terrible human rights record. Is it any wonder that Americans know almost nothing about Venezuelan democracy and the man who shaped it for the past nine years. Under his leadership, it's the real thing, is impressive and improving. Compare it to America where "The People" have no say, democracy is nowhere in sight, and under the Bush administration it's pretense, lawless, and corrupted.

What's Going On and What's At Stake

Throughout most of the last century, and especially post-WW II, America's international relations have been appalling and destructive. It's the world's leading bully, it practices state terrorism, disdains democracy, defiles the rule of law, tramples on human and civil rights, demands unquestioned obedience, and rules by what Noam Chomsky calls "the Fifth Freedom" that shreds the other four: to "rob, to exploit and to dominate society, to undertake any course of action to insure that existing privilege is protected and advanced." Outliers aren't tolerated, national sovereignty is sinful, independence is a crime, and dare disobey the imperial master guarantees certain punishment.

William Blum documented the history in three editions of his book, "Rogue State." He wrote: "Between 1945 and 2005 the United States has attempted to overthrow more than 50 foreign governments, and to crush more than 30 populist-nationalist movements struggling against intolerable regimes. In the process, the US has caused....several million (deaths), and condemned many millions more to a life of agony and despair." Washington won't tolerate nations that won't:

-- "lie down and happily become an American client,"

-- accept free market capitalism and today's steroid-enhanced neoliberal version that's even more predatory,

-- sacrifice its peoples' welfare for ours,

-- "produce primarily for export,"

-- allow dangerous environmental dumping on its soil,

-- surrender to IMF, World Bank, WTO and international banking rules; accept exploitive structural adjustments and debt slavery as a way of life;

-- relinquish control of its natural resources, especially if they're large oil and gas deposits,

-- surrender all freedoms and call it democracy,

-- permit US military bases on its soil, and-- agree unquestionably to all other imperial demands.

Countries unwilling to oblige are called "bad examples (and) reduced to basket cases." In addition, their leaders are replaced by "friendlier" ones. It's an ugly story of the rich against the poor, the monied interests against all humanity, and if outliers are tolerated, they'll be "bad examples" for others to follow.

Chavez became one of them after his 1998 election. Ever since, he's been a thorn in America's craw and its greatest threat - a "good example" that's a model for other nations. He also inspires social movements throughout the Americas, even though none so far are dominant or even even close, and he shows signs of wavering on some of his earlier commitments. More on that below.

Imperialism is safe in the Americas, and James Petras explained it in his new article: "Movements in Flux and Center-Left Governments in Power." He states: "The singular fact about Latin America is that, despite a number of massive popular upheavals, several regime changes and (some ascendant) mass social movements, the continuity of property relations remains intact." In fact, they're more concentrated, "giant agro-mineral export enterprises" are prospering, and "class structure (and) socio-economic inequalities" persist, even though Hugo Chavez stands out, in part, as an exception. Petras calls him "pragmatic."

He "reversed (some of) the corrupt privatizations of previous rightest neo-liberal regimes," but still supports business. Nonetheless, Washington sees him as a threat because he embraces participatory democracy, practices redistributive social policies, and envisions a "new socialism of the 21st century....based in solidarity, fraternity, love, justice, liberty and equality." Those ideas and his expressive language are anathema to America and its hard line neoliberal model.

As a result, he tops George Bush's target list outside the Middle East, and that status won't change under a new administration in 2009, especially if a Republican heads it. But even Democrats are hostile. When candidates discuss Latin America, Chavez is Topic One and their comments aren't friendly.

Earlier (but no longer), John McCain's web site was outrageous. It featured a petition to "stop the dictators of Latin America" and supported ousting Chavez "in the name of democracy and freedom throughout the hemisphere." He lashed out at a news conference in Miami's Little Havana stating that "everyone should understand the connections" between (Bolivia's) Evo Morales, Castro and Chavez. "They inspire each other. They assist each other. They get ideas from each other. It's very disturbing." He also calls Chavez a "wacko" and a "two-bit dictator."

These comments aren't surprising from a man who headed the hard right International Republican Institute (IRI). Along with the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and USAID, these organizations front for imperialism, support rightest dictators, and plot the overthrow of independent democrats like Chavez who dare confront America.

Think hard about this man from what his fellow Republicans say about him. Some call him psychologically unhinged and unqualified to be president. Mississippi Senator Thad Cochran said: "The thought of (McCain) being president sends a cold chill down my spine." Others from the far right, like Alabama's Dick Shelby, former Pennsylvania Senator Rick Santorum, and Oklahoma's Jim Inhofe, mention times McCain screamed four-letter obscenities at them in the Senate cloak room. Another senator said: "He is frighteningly unfit to be Commander-in-Chief."

Along with these unsettling comments, there are disturbing allegations about McCain's POW years and reported special treatment he got after his father, Admiral JS McCain, became CINCPAC Commander-in-Chief, Pacific Command over all Vietnam theater forces. An organization called "Vietnam Veterans Against John McCain" is actively addressing his record on things people have a right to know about public officials, if they're true, and McCain has an obligation to explain them.

Democrats aren't much better, and consider their views about Chavez. They're hardly friendly with Hillary Clinton saying "we have witnessed the rollback of democratic development and economic openness in parts of Latin America" with no confusion about who she means. Barack Obama is also suspect despite saying if elected he'll meet with Iranian, Cuban, Syrian and Venezuelan leaders. It sounds good until he qualifies it and spoils everything. He labels these countries "rogue states," reveals his real feelings, and signals his hostility and unwillingness to establish good relations with them.

Forget Obama's friendly smile, comforting demeanor and reassuring rhetoric. Bottom line - he's no different from the rest. There's not a dime's worth of difference among them that matters. Next January, they'll be a new face in charge with the same agenda: wars without end; subservience to the monied interests; disdain for the common good; and deference to the dominant media view that Chavez is: an authoritarian, a strongman, a dictator and what Wall Street Journal columnist Mary Anastasia O'Grady calls him: anti-democratic, dictatorial, vengeful, bullying, crude, unpopular, and having "an insatiable thirst for power that should give Venezuelans reason to be fearful.

"Forget that under Chavez Venezuelan business is booming or how gracious he was in defeat last December after voters rejected his constitutional reforms. Petras assessed what followed. Centrist and other influential Chavez advisors jumped on the setback and "pressed their advantage to secure programmatic, tactical-strategic and organizational changes." They got him to replace over a dozen cabinet ministers and others in government with new faces sharing their views. They also, to a degree, shifted Chavez to the center, influenced him to "slow down....the move to socialisma, (establish) economic ties with the big bourgeoisie, (halt) immediate moves to nationalize strategic economic enterprises, and (move slowly) in reforming land tenure.

"In addition, they got him to ally "with the middle class center-right parties, and (won) them over (by eliminating) price controls to let "basic food prices.... soar, while salaries remain stagnant." The result: a fundamental contradiction in trying to advance socialism by "liberalizing economic policy." Petras is worried that Chavez's base (the urban poor) "will lose interest, abstain or resist the centrists and withdraw their loyalties." Indignation is surfacing, loyal Chavez support may be jeopardized, and it "raises fundamental questions about the long-term future of state-class movement relations under" his leadership.

In addition, rightest forces see an opening, are pressing their advantage, Exxon's move is a warning shot, and so are reports about Colombian paramilitaries entering the country in greater numbers. More destabilization will follow, and continued efforts will be made to weaken Chavez, then try to oust him. More than ever, he needs strong support at a time it's jeopardized, and that's a worrisome situation to consider. Venezuela's Bolivarianism is glorious provided it flourishes, grows and achieves its long-term goals. It's been extraordinary so far, still has miles to go, and it's unthinkable to waiver now and pull back.

Petras alarmingly notes that when "social movements (adopt common) electoral strategies, (work) within the framework of institutional politics, and (ally) with center-left regimes....few positive reforms and numerous regressive" ones result. Will this be Venezuelans' fate? The prospect is frightening because if not Chavez, who'll lead their struggle for social equity and justice - for the nation, the region and beyond. Bolivarianism is glorious and vibrant. But to flourish, grow and prosper, it needs care and nurturing from a resolute leader backed by mass popular support.

Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago and can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.

Fidel Castro Resigns as Cuba’s President - NY Times report

McKinley Jr.’s review of Fidel Castro’s role in the leadership of the Cuban socialist revolution is unusual for its candid admission of the revolution’s accomplishments over the last fifty years.

Castro’s record, he writes, “has been a mix of great social achievements, but a dismal economic performance that has mired most Cubans in poverty. He succeeded in establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.”

Just prior to making that observation the journalist acknowledged that the US had imposed “decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.”

Readers accustomed to thinking outside the box will likely ponder the question as to why the United States of America, with all its enormous economic and natural resources, has been unable to make similar social advances such as “establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.”

McKinley Jr. is careful in his own way to stay within the constraints of official US mythology about Cuba-US relations, dutifully blaming Castro for the breakdown of relations with Washington five decades ago. He writes:

“The charismatic Cuban leader seized power in January 1959 after waging a guerrilla war against the then-dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban constitution and hold elections.

“But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of communism and allied the island with the Soviet Union. He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the fall of 1962, when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 90 miles off the American shores. He weathered an American-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

“Those actions earned him the permanent enmity of Washington and led the United States to impose decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.”

McKinley Jr. fails to mention an important detail when he mentions Cuba’s alliance with the Soviet Union. It followed a rapid succession of hostile US moves such as the cancellation of the sugar quota and refusal of US oil giants to refine oil. The US measures were taken as punishment for the land reform that infringed on the so-called property rights of wealthy US citizens and of their friends from the old Batista dictatorship.

The Times writer also leaves out such salient historical facts as the US sponsored “Bay of Pigs” invasion. Washington drove Cuba into its strategic alliance and subsequent economic reliance on the Soviet Union. It pined for a victory of Stalinist forces in Cuba, the kind of bureaucrats that the US is highly skilled at dealing with ever since the wartime alliance with Stalin. But that did not happen.

Moscow-inspired Stalinist elements in Cuba did rear their heads, but were quickly isolated and politically defeated. The leadership of the revolution remained in the hands of genuine Marxists whose most representative and prominent advocates were Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Che's influence remains powerful as last year's commemoration in Santa Clara demonstrated (see my article Our 21st century Zimmerwald, October 16th 2007, at http://www.forumdesalternatives.org/EN/readarticle.php?article_id=4455 )

Castro did not bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. Washington did.

McKinley Jr. forgets to mention that the US had placed nuclear weapons in Turkey, across the Black Sea from the USSR’s southwestern flank and major ice-free southern ports. Moscow decided to place nuclear weapons in Cuba as a means of pressuring the US to remove their missiles from Turkey. Cuba agreed, but wanted to do this openly and not in secret, as Moscow had insisted. Washington and Moscow finally reached an agreement after Kennedy had placed a naval blockade around Cuba and threatened nuclear war. The decision to remove the missiles was reached without consulting Cuba, a violation of its sovereignty that the small Caribbean nation denounced before world public opinion.

The Times writer notes that Castro “never broke the island’s dependence on commodities like sugar, tobacco and nickel, nor did he succeed in industrializing the nation so that Cuba could compete in the world market with durable goods. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of its aid to the island, Cuba has limped along economically, relying mostly on tourism and money sent home from exiles to get hard currency.”

This is partly true, but the same can be said for most third world countries, none of which have suffered a permanent US economic embargo and relentless hostility. Some of the favored “democracies” of the US in Latin America, such as El Salvador, are now completely dependent on family remittances from immigrant workers in the US and on US military aid. None of them can claim the social achievements of Cuba, accomplished despite economic sabotage directed from Washington. Moreover, many of them are now beneficiaries of aid from Cuba in the form of medical and educational personnel and programs such as Operation Miracle (Operación Milagro) that has restored sight to tens of thousands of Latin Americans.

Had McKinley Jr. included some of that information in his review of Castro’s performance readers might be better able to appreciate why, as he admits, “Castro’s willingness to stand up to the United States and break free of American influence, even if it meant allying Cuba with another superpower, has been an inspiration to many Latin Americans, among them the new crop of left-leaning heads of state like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil.”

More importantly, Fidel Castro has been an inspiration millions of workers, campesinos, intellectuals, and artists in Indo-Afro-Latin America ever since the 1959 victory. As the Patria Grande (our Indo-Afro-Latin America south of the Rio Bravo) has moved left in recent years, grassroots admiration and respect for Cuba and its leadership have grown immensely.

Fidel’s letter declining re-nomination to the presidency of the socialist republic will only strengthen and consolidate that trend. It is one more powerful indication of the democratic and mature political culture produced by the revolution and sustained by Cuba’s highly educated and politically sophisticated population.

Felipe Stuart
Managua

PS

Castro's letter to the nation explaining why he will not accept another term as president of the Council of State is available in English in the Blog post immediately below.

Or from Granma International at:
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/mar19/mensaje-i.html

It can also be found in Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, and Italian on the Granma International site.

Below is the New York Times article by JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/americas/20castro.html?ref=world

February 20, 2008
Fidel Castro Resigns as Cuba’s President
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

MEXICO CITY — Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness, according to Granma, the official publication of the Cuban Communist Party. His resignation ends one of the longest tenures as one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world.

In late July 2006, Mr. Castro, who is 81, handed over power temporarily to his brother, Raúl Castro, 76, and a few younger cabinet ministers, after an acute infection in his colon forced him to undergo emergency surgery. Despite numerous surgical procedures since then, he has never fully recovered, but he has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.

Now, just days before the national assembly is to meet to select a new head of state, Fidel Castro resigned permanently in a letter to the nation, and signaled his willingness to let a younger generation assume power. He said his failing health made it impossible to return as president.

“I will not aspire to, neither will I accept — I repeat I will not aspire to, neither will I accept — the position of President of the Council of State and Commander in chief,” he wrote.

He added: “It would betray my conscience to occupy a responsibility that requires mobility and the total commitment that I am not in the physical condition to offer.”

President Bush, traveling in Rwanda on a tour of African nations, greeted the news by saying that Mr. Castro’s resignation should be the beginning a democratic transition in Cuba that would lead to free elections. “The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty,” he said.

Mr. Bush called on Cuba to release political prisoners and to begin building “institutions necessary for democracy that eventually will lead to free and fair elections.”

But the announcement puts Raúl Castro in position to be anointed as the Cuban head of state when the National Assembly meets on Sunday, cementing the power structure that has run the country since his brother fell ill.

Fidel Castro’s unexpected announcement left unclear the roles that other high-level government ministers — among them the vice president, Carlos Lage Davila, and the foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque — would play in the new government.

Mr. Castro also indicated that he is not fading into the sunset, but would continue to be a force in Cuban politics through his writings, just as he has over the last year and a half. “I am not saying goodbye to you,” he wrote. “I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas.”

That statement raised the possibility that little would change after Sunday’s vote, that Cuba would continue to be ruled in essence by two presidents, with Raúl Castro on stage while Fidel Castro lurks in the wings. At times over the last year and a half, the current government has seemed paralyzed when the two men disagreed. For his part, Mr. Castro has sent several signals in recent months that it was time for a younger generation to take the helm. He said in December, for example, “My primary duty is not to weld myself to offices, much less obstruct the path of younger people.”

In Tuesday’s letter, he expressed confidence that the country would be in goods hands with a government composed of elements of “the old guard” and “others who were very young when the first stage of the revolution began.”

Mr. Castro asserted he declined to step down earlier to avoid dealing a blow to the Cuba government before “the people” were ready for a traumatic change “in the middle of the battle” with the United States over control of the country’s future. “To prepare the people for my absence, psychologically and politically, was my first obligation after so many years of struggle,” he said.

The charismatic Cuban leader seized power in January 1959 after waging a guerrilla war against the then-dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban constitution and hold elections.

But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of communism and allied the island with the Soviet Union. He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the fall of 1962, when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 90 miles off the American shores. He weathered an American-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

Those actions earned him the permanent enmity of Washington and led the United States to impose decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.

The sanctions also proved handy to Mr. Castro politically. He cast every problem Cuba faced as part of a larger struggle against the United States and blamed the abject poverty of the island on the “imperialists” to the north.

For good or ill, Mr. Castro is without a doubt the most important leader to emerge from Latin America since the wars of independence of the early 19th century, not only reshaping Cuban society but providing inspiration for leftists across Latin America and in other parts of the world.

His record has been a mix of great social achievements, but a dismal economic performance that has mired most Cubans in poverty. He succeeded in establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.

But he never broke the island’s dependence on commodities like sugar, tobacco and nickel, nor did he succeed in industrializing the nation so that Cuba could compete in the world market with durable goods. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of its aid to the island, Cuba has limped along economically, relying mostly on tourism and money sent home from exiles to get hard currency.

Yet Mr. Castro’s willingness to stand up to the United States and break free of American influence, even if it meant allying Cuba with another superpower, has been an inspiration to many Latin Americans, among them the new crop of left-leaning heads of state like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil..

Though he never restored democracy and has ruled with absolute power, in the minds of many Latin Americans, he stood in stark contrast to right-wing dictators like the one he overthrew, who often put the interests of business leaders and the foreign policy goals of Washington above the interests of their poorest constituents.

Whether Mr. Castro’s remaking of Cuban society will survive the current transition remains to be seen. Some experts note Raúl Castro is more pragmatic and willing to admit mistakes than his brother. He has given signals he might try to follow the Chinese example of state-sponsored capitalism.

Others predict that, without Fidel Castro’s charismatic leadership, the government will have to make fundamental changes to the economy or face a rising tide of unrest among rank-and-file Cubans.

Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.

Fidel Castro says he will not accept nomination for President

In this message to the Cuban people outgoing President Fidel Castro informs the nation and the world that he will not accept nomination for another term as president of the State Council.

The translation is taken from Granma International at
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/mar19/mensaje-i.html

Felipe Stuart
Managua

Message from the Commander in Chief

Dear compatriots:

Last Friday, February 15, I promised you that in my next reflection I would deal with an issue of interest to many compatriots. Thus, this now is rather a message.

The moment has come to nominate and elect the State Council, its President, its Vice-Presidents and Secretary.

For many years I have occupied the honorable position of President. On February 15, 1976 the Socialist Constitution was approved with the free, direct and secret vote of over 95% of the people with the right to cast a vote. The first National Assembly was established on December 2nd that same year; this elected the State Council and its presidency. Before that, I had been a Prime Minister for almost 18 years. I always had the necessary prerogatives to carry forward the revolutionary work with the support of the overwhelming majority of the people.

There were those overseas who, aware of my critical health condition, thought that my provisional resignation, on July 31, 2006, to the position of President of the State Council, which I left to First Vice-President Raul Castro Ruz, was final. But Raul, who is also minister of the Armed Forces on account of his own personal merits, and the other comrades of the Party and State leadership were unwilling to consider me out of public life despite my unstable health condition.

It was an uncomfortable situation for me vis-à-vis an adversary which had done everything possible to get rid of me, and I felt reluctant to comply.

Later, in my necessary retreat, I was able to recover the full command of my mind as well as the possibility for much reading and meditation. I had enough physical strength to write for many hours, which I shared with the corresponding rehabilitation and recovery programs. Basic common sense indicated that such activity was within my reach. On the other hand, when referring to my health I was extremely careful to avoid raising expectations since I felt that an adverse ending would bring traumatic news to our people in the midst of the battle. Thus, my first duty was to prepare our people both politically and psychologically for my absence after so many years of struggle. I kept saying that my recovery "was not without risks."

My wishes have always been to discharge my duties to my last breath. That’s all I can offer.

To my dearest compatriots, who have recently honored me so much by electing me a member of the Parliament where so many agreements should be adopted of utmost importance to the destiny of our Revolution, I am saying that I will neither aspire to nor accept, I repeat, I will neither aspire to nor accept the positions of President of the State Council and Commander in Chief.

In short letters addressed to Randy Alonso, Director of the Round Table National TV Program, --letters which at my request were made public-- I discreetly introduced elements of this message I am writing today, when not even the addressee of such letters was aware of my intention. I trusted Randy, whom I knew very well from his days as a student of Journalism.
In those days I met almost on a weekly basis with the main representatives of the University students from the provinces at the library of the large house in Kohly where they lived. Today, the entire country is an immense University.

Following are some paragraphs chosen from the letter addressed to Randy on December 17, 2007:

"I strongly believe that the answers to the current problems facing Cuban society, which has, as an average, a twelfth grade of education, almost a million university graduates, and a real possibility for all its citizens to become educated without their being in any way discriminated against, require more variables for each concrete problem than those contained in a chess game. We cannot ignore one single detail; this is not an easy path to take, if the intelligence of a human being in a revolutionary society is to prevail over instinct.

"My elemental duty is not to cling to positions, much less to stand in the way of younger persons, but rather to contribute my own experience and ideas whose modest value comes from the exceptional era that I had the privilege of living in.

"Like Niemeyer, I believe that one has to be consistent right up to the end."

Letter from January 8, 2008:

"…I am a firm supporter of the united vote (a principle that preserves the unknown merits), which allowed us to avoid the tendency to copy what came to us from countries of the former socialist bloc, including the portrait of the one candidate, as singular as his solidarity towards Cuba. I deeply respect that first attempt at building socialism, thanks to which we were able to continue along the path we had chosen."

And I reiterated in that letter that "…I never forget that ‘all of the world’s glory fits in a kernel of corn."

Therefore, it would be a betrayal to my conscience to accept a responsibility requiring more mobility and dedication than I am physically able to offer. This I say devoid of all drama.

Fortunately, our Revolution can still count on cadres from the old guard and others who were very young in the early stages of the process. Some were very young, almost children, when they joined the fight on the mountains and later they have given glory to the country with their heroic performance and their internationalist missions. They have the authority and the experience to guarantee the replacement. There is also the intermediate generation which learned together with us the basics of the complex and almost unattainable art of organizing and leading a revolution.

The path will always be difficult and require from everyone’s intelligent effort. I distrust the seemingly easy path of apologetics or its antithesis the self-flagellation. We should always be prepared for the worst variable. The principle of being as prudent in success as steady in adversity cannot be forgotten. The adversary to be defeated is extremely strong; however, we have been able to keep it at bay for half a century.

This is not my farewell to you. My only wish is to fight as a soldier in the battle of ideas. I shall continue to write under the heading of ‘Reflections by comrade Fidel.’ It will be just another weapon you can count on. Perhaps my voice will be heard. I shall be careful.

Thanks.

Fidel Castro Ruz
February 18, 2008
5:30 p.m.