[Marxism] Fidel Castro: Swimming Up Stream ("a calm and serene response" to Obama)

Walter Lippmann walterlx at earthlink.net
Fri Dec 5 07:44:01 MST 2008


Here Fidel points out that Obama has not responded to the questions
Fidel raised following Obama's appearance at the Cuban American
National Foundation in May 2008, and he lays out an agenda of vital
issues which need to be addressed to bring about an improvement of
relations between the United States and Cuba. 

Please read the following two paragraphs very carefully:

"I will not say now that Obama is any less smart. On the contrary, 
he is showing the mental faculties that enabled me to see and compare
his capacity with that of his mediocre adversary, John McCain, who
was almost rewarded for his “exploits” merely due to the traditions
of the American society. If it had not been for the economic crisis,
television and the Internet, Obama would not have won the elections
against the omnipotent racism. It also helped that he studied first
at Columbia University, where he graduated in Political Science, and
then at Harvard where he graduated as a lawyer. This enabled him to
become a member of the modestly rich class with only several million
dollars. He is certainly not Abraham Lincoln, nor are these times
similar to those. That society is today a consumer society where the
saving habits have been lost while the spending habit has multiplied.

"Somebody had to offer a calm and serene response even though this
will have to swim up the powerful stream of hopes raised by Obama in
international public opinion."


Walter Lippmann
Los Angeles, California
=================================================================

Reflections by comrade Fidel

http://www.cuba.cu/gobierno/reflexiones/2008/ing/f041208i.html

SWIMMING UP STREAM

Following Obama’s speech, on May 23 this year, to the Cuban 
American National Foundation established by Ronald Reagan, 
I wrote a reflection entitled “The Empire’s Hypocritical Policy”. 
It was dated on the 25th of the same month.

In that Reflection I quoted his exact words to the Miami
annexationists: “[…] together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba;
this is my word and my commitment […] It's time to let Cuban American
money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. […]
I will maintain the embargo.”

I then offered several arguments and unethical examples of the
general behavior of the Presidents who preceded the one who would be
elected to that position on the November 4 elections. I literally
wrote:

“I find myself forced to raise various sensitive questions:

1. Is it right for the President of the United States to order the
assassination of any one person in the world, whatever the pretext
may be?

2. Is it ethical for the President of the United States to order the
torture of other human beings?

3. Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the
United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?

4. Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment on only one country,
Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it
costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why
is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and
other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn’t the same Act applied to
Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like
flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the
Atlantic and the Pacific?

5. Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables,
fruits, almonds and other delicacies for Americans? Who would sweep
their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and
lowest-paid jobs?

6. Are crackdowns on illegal residents fair, even as they affect
children born in the United States?

7. Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best
scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and
justifiable?

8. You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection,
that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would
not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that
this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene
anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and
naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I
ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect
for freedom, democracy and human rights?

9. Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more dark
corners of the world, as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may
be?

10. Is it honorable and sound to invest millions upon millions of
dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that
can destroy life on earth several times over?”

I could have included several other issues.

Despite the caustic questions, I was not unkind to the African
American candidate. I perceived he had greater capacity and command
of the art of politics than his adversaries, not only in the opposing
party but in his own, too.

Last week, the American President-elect Barack Obama announced his
Economic Recovery Program.

Monday, December 1st, he introduced his National Security and Foreign
Policy teams.

“Vice President-elect Biden and I are pleased to announce our
national security team […] old conflicts remain unresolved, and newly
assertive powers have put strains on the international system. The
spread of nuclear weapons raises the peril that the world's deadliest
technology could fall into dangerous hands. Our dependence on foreign
oil empowers authoritarian governments and endangers our planet.”

“…our economic power must sustain our military strength, our
diplomatic leverage, and our global leadership.”

“We will renew old alliances and forge new and enduring partnerships
[…] American values are America's greatest export to the world.”

“…the team that we have assembled here today is uniquely suited to do
just that.”

“…these men and women represent all of those elements of American
power […] they have served in uniform and as diplomats […] they share
my pragmatism about the use of power, and my sense of purpose about
America's role as a leader in the world.”

“I have known Hillary Clinton…,” he says.

I am mindful of the fact that she was President-elect Barack Obama’s
rival and the wife of President Clinton, who signed the
extraterritorial Torricelli and Helms Burton Acts against Cuba.
During the presidential race she committed herself with these laws
and with the economic blockade. I am not complaining, I am simply
stating it for the record.

“I am proud that she will be our next Secretary of State,” said
Obama. “[she] will command respect in every capitol; and who will
clearly have the ability to advance our interests around the world.
Hillary's appointment is a sign to friend and foe of the seriousness
of my commitment…”

“At a time when we face an unprecedented transition amidst two wars,
I have asked Robert Gates to continue as Secretary of Defense…”

“[…] I will be giving Secretary Gates and our military a new mission
as soon as I take office: responsibly ending the war in Iraq through
a successful transition to Iraqi control.”

It strikes me that Gates is a Republican, not a Democrat. He is the
only one who has been Defense Secretary and Director of the Central
Intelligence Agency, that is, he has occupied these positions under
both Democratic and Republican Administrations. Gates, who is aware
of his popularity, has said that first made sure that the
President-elect was choosing him for as long as necessary.

On the other hand, while Condoleezza Rice was traveling to India and
Pakistan under Bush’s instructions to mediate in the tense relations
between these two countries, two days ago, the minister of Defense
from Brazil gave the green light to a Brazilian company to
manufacture MAR-1 missiles, but instead of one a month, as it had
been the case until now, it will produce five every month. One
hundred of these missiles will be sold to Pakistan at an estimated
cost of 85 million euros.

In a public statement, the minister said that “these missiles that
can be attached to planes have been designed to locate ground radars.
They allow the effective monitoring of both the ground and air
space.”

As for Obama, he continued unflappable his Monday statement: “And
going forward, we will continue to make the investments necessary to
strengthen our military and increase our ground forces to defeat the
threats of the 21st century.”

On Janet Napolitano, he indicated: “[she] offers the experience and
executive skill that we need in the next Secretary of Homeland
Security…”

“Janet assumes this critical role having learned the lessons – some
of them painful – of the last several years, from 9/11 to Katrina […]
She understands as well as anyone the danger of an insecure border.
And she will be a leader who can reform a sprawling Department while
safeguarding our homeland.”

This familiar figure had been appointed a District Attorney in
Arizona by Clinton in 1993, and then promoted to State Attorney
General in 1998. Later on, in 2002, she became a Democratic Party
candidate and then governor of that bordering state which is the most
common incoming route used by illegal immigrants. She was elected
governor in 2006.

About Susan Elizabeth Rice, he said: “Susan knows that the global
challenges we face demand global institutions that work… We need the
UN to be more effective as a venue for collective action – against
terror and proliferation; climate change and genocide; poverty and
disease.”

On National Security Advisor James Jones he said: “[…] I am convinced
that General James Jones is uniquely suited to be a strong and
skilled National Security Advisor. Generations of Joneses have served
heroically on the battlefield – from the beaches of Tarawa in World
War II, to Foxtrot Ridge in Vietnam. Jim's Silver Star is a proud
part of that legacy […] He has commanded a platoon in battle, served
as Supreme Allied Commander in a time of war, (he means NATO and the
Gulf War) and worked on behalf of peace in the Middle East.”

“Jim is focused on the threats of today and the future. He
understands the connection between energy and national security, and
has worked on the frontlines of global instability – from Kosovo to
northern Iraq to Afghanistan.”

“He will advise me and work effectively to integrate our efforts
across the government, so that we are effectively using all elements
of American power to defeat unconventional threats and promote our
values.”

“I am confident that this is the team that we need to make a new
beginning for American national security.”

Obama is somebody we can talk to anywhere he wishes since we do not
preach violence or war. He should be reminded, though, that the stick
and carrot doctrine will have no place in our country.

None of the phrases in his latest speech shows any element of
response to the questions I raised last May 25, just six months ago.

I will not say now that Obama is any less smart. On the contrary, he
is showing the mental faculties that enabled me to see and compare
his capacity with that of his mediocre adversary, John McCain, who
was almost rewarded for his “exploits” merely due to the traditions
of the American society. If it had not been for the economic crisis,
television and the Internet, Obama would not have won the elections
against the omnipotent racism. It also helped that he studied first
at Columbia University, where he graduated in Political Science, and
then at Harvard where he graduated as a lawyer. This enabled him to
become a member of the modestly rich class with only several million
dollars. He is certainly not Abraham Lincoln, nor are these times
similar to those. That society is today a consumer society where the
saving habits have been lost while the spending habit has multiplied.

Somebody had to offer a calm and serene response even though this
will have to swim up the powerful stream of hopes raised by Obama in
the international public opinion.

I only have two more press dispatches left to analyze. They all carry
news from everywhere. I have estimated that only the United States
will be spending in this economic crisis over $6 trillion in paper
money, an amount that can only be assessed by the rest of the peoples
of the world with their sweat and hunger, their suffering and blood.

Our principles are the same as those of Baraguá. The empire should
know that our Homeland can be turned to dust but the sovereign rights
of the Cuban people are not negotiable.


Fidel Castro Ruz
December 4, 2008
5:28p.m.



=========================================
     WALTER LIPPMANN
     Los Angeles, California
     Editor-in-Chief, CubaNews
     http://groups.yahoo.com/group/CubaNews/
     "Cuba - Un Paraíso bajo el bloqueo"
=========================================




More information about the Marxism mailing list