The Empire’s Blogger

By Stella Calloni for CubaDebate – Español: La “bloguera” del imperio

Translated and edited by Machetera

During the most recent years and now too, like a cursed inheritance, the White House image has begun to deteriorate further – if such a thing were possible – around the world; as it resorts to the use of crude and unsustainable people in brutal coups d’etat such as that of the putschist Roberto Micheletti in Honduras, and employing other people in the same way, for deadly or silly operettas directed toward the same end, masked as “humanitarian” actions.

Although on the one hand, it played at fake “negotiations” in order to gain time in Honduras, a country occupied by the U.S. military through its bases and troops, when it comes to actions against Cuba or Venezuela and other countries, the U.S. has used such discredited people that its strategy ends up boomeranging.

Washington’s over-acting is evident when it comes to Cuba, through the support that President Barack Obama gave to Yoani Sánchez, a woman whose name was until now absolutely unknown, and who acts just like those who seek quick money and recognition by helping the CIA in its work to destroy the Cuban revolution no matter what.

Apparently, Sánchez’s job is to call attention and provide sustenance to an absolutely impoverished international press, which forces its journalists to submit to the humiliation of swallowing whole, stories that are patently contradictory, false, and unverifiable.

But since the role that has been assigned to them is to report as much news as might be useful for the insistent dirty or psychological war, no matter that in certain cases it still has nothing to show for it – look at the latest U.N. vote against the blockade of Cuba – they have to accept the situation for what it is.  Business pays, business calls the shots.  That’s the extent of their phony “independence.”

Neither Obama nor his advisers have had the same attitude toward other young Cuban “bloggers,” who attempted to uncover the reason for the long blockade, which has caused an astonishing level of human and economic damage, and has hugely violated the human rights of the Cuban people.  Instead the White House moved to “protect” a “blogger” whose only objective is to win for herself the support of the enemies that threaten Cuba, among them the Miami terrorists sheltered by the United States government.

This, despite a bloody history of crimes, first, against the Cuban people but also against Latin Americans, Africans and North Americans, as shown by the hundreds of unpunished terrorist actions that these people have carried out against U.S. society.  There’s nothing more awful than terrorism exercised against the people to force them into submission, such as with these actions and the blockade itself, going on now nearly 50 years, something this unusual “blogger” does not protest.

Only state terrorism that prides itself as such, conceals the crimes of terrorist groups.  The image of Luis Posada Carriles and his buddies, wandering freely in the United States, after the variety of crimes against humanity which they have committed with impunity, is a symbol of the terrorist hypocrisy of a state.

The Cuban journalist Norelys Morales Aguilera tells how last June 17, 2009, a group of Cuban journalism students studying for their Masters’ degrees in Sancti Spíritus, Cuba, “addressed President Barack Obama, sending him a questionnaire, equally deserving of a response such as that which he granted the mercenary Yoani Sánchez.” They wrote to President Obama: “…taking into account that the White House website has as its mission the highlighting of current government initiatives that benefit the Hispanic community and enhance the quality of information and services in Spanish.”

They continued, “We know that you are an admirer of new technologies – it was mentioned in our class today.  It’s regrettable that you can’t receive us at the White House, because we’d like to ask you a number of questions, although this would surely bother the ultra-rightwing in the U.S.  Since you are the president of a completely free country, just like ours, we are attaching the following questionnaire.”

The questionnaire asked what the president thought of the five Cubans, prisoners serving stunning sentences for simply having gathered information, not about the United States, but about the terrorists in Miami who’ve plagued Cuba throughout its history and who were making new criminal plans.

They also suggested that being an “extremely humane person, [Obama should] examine the case of the Five, following the Supreme Court decision not to hear their case, despite the numerous requests that came from all over the world.  “Could you look over this case and do it real justice?” the young students asked, reminding him that while running for the U.S. presidency, he’d announced that if he won, he would bring about changes in relations with Cuba.

The text was signed by Carlos Rafael Diéguez in the name of all his fellow students, from the network of “Revolutionary Bloggers and Correspondents.”

They added: “When will the people of the United States be able to visit Cuba, and when will the blockade, or so-called embargo, of our country end? (…) When can journalists such as myself  and other colleagues from the Cuban media be able to conduct an interview to talk about the Five Heroes and the blockade? (…) Do the Cuban people have the right to choose the social system we desire, or is the U.S. model the only right that exists?  Posada Carriles was proven at trial to be the intellectual author of the monstrous crime of bringing down a Cuban airplane mid-flight (1976).  This killer escaped from prison in Venezuela and today wanders freely through the streets of the United States.  What do you think, Mr. President?  Is this case comparable to that of the Five Cuban Heroes?”

They received an automated response suggesting that they should call the White House by telephone.  Basically a mockery.

What Washington needs to remember is that one of Cuba’s serious problems is that the blockade itself impedes the speed of communication, keeping the Cuban people incommunicado, while their government has to perform a juggling act to deal with it.  Of course the empire’s “blogger” has no such problems.  She writes, and the president answers, something that has not happened with the urgent requests from the neediest sectors of U.S. society.

I agree with the Cuban journalist mentioned above, that it is seriously doubtful that Yoani Sánchez could have “reached” President Obama while the young students who sent this serious questionnaire, seeking an explanation about whatever is making a change in U.S. policy toward Cuba impossible were ignored, in the face of the abundant evidence that the world is demanding a change from Washington.

It occurs to me that governments in Washington are already not the decisive force, that U.S. presidents perform with their hands tied, or are simply complicit with the mandates of the mafias of imperial power, which as in all imperial schemes do not rely on reason, but force.

These questions sent by the Cuban students are not the only messages that President Obama has received, after creating such great expectations surrounding his arrival to the presidency, and the symbolism this arrival had for blacks and Hispanics in the United States, who’ve suffered such discrimination and persecution.  It’s vital that the President abandon once and for all the old exercise of U.S. double standards that have sown so much damage, death and violence throughout the world.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Dialogue, Debate, Confrontation.  Toward a Delimitation of Boundaries – Español

By Enrique Ubieta Gómez for La Isla Deconocida

Translation: Machetera

I believe in ideas, in revolutionary reason.  I support the Cuban Revolution from a reasoned perspective, from an argumentative perspective.  I am convinced that it is possible to discuss and analyze every success and every failure of these 50 years, and that on balance, the revolutionary process will always come out favorably. I don’t shirk from debate.

But I’ve also understood that the war against socialism, against the Revolution, is not a “scientific” or “academic” crusade for truth; that its adversaries are not theoreticians obsessed with proving that they are right (although some of them teach or are academic professionals), rather, they are individuals who for a variety of motives – personal history, ideological, or simply economic – desire its destruction.  I’ve proven that there is a network of transnational interests that play hard: they lie or mislead and they are betting that their (verisimilitude) version will come out the winner in the media “show;” that which takes over the mind of the spectators.  A network that chooses the exact words that should be used and repeats them in order to describe every subject and object, every event (regime rather than government, embargo rather than blockade, Castro rather than Fidel or Raúl, as the people refer to them).  That people manufacture them, plant them, and that the media can close the doors and windows on any argument that reveals the trap.  That dialogue is for the deaf, because the objective is not who’s right, but who will maintain or take power.

Therefore, it’s essential to differentiate the three possible levels of interaction with countries or people removed or even ideologically opposed to the revolutionary process.  With those who recognize and accept the historical legitimacy of the Revolution, and are disposed toward seeking common ground for agreement in order to co-exist, dialogue is possible and necessary.

With those who disagree with our criteria and consider us mistaken, but argue their position in a serious way, there can be a debate.  Debate is a healthy exercise as it allows for the discovery of strengths and weaknesses in the way we see things.  Dialogue is to find a common space for co-existence; debate to clarify divergent or contrary positions.  Both pre-suppose a respect for the rights of others and exclude impositions.

But if the objective is not to convince, but to impose, if the country or the person who disagrees has as their ultimate goal the defeat of their adversary, the taking of power, if there is an expressed intention to subvert, then we are talking about confrontation and the right of the Revolution to defend itself.  It’s what Marx called the class struggle.

The ultimate strategy of the Revolution and its historical sense is one of unification: unification of different, disagreeing people, in a common project.  That was the strength of José Martí and also Fidel Castro.  The first spoke vehemently of a homeland “with all and for the good of all,” but neither political “freaks” nor the annexationists were included in that.  Fidel explained it another way: “Within the Revolution, everything [this includes those who don't share it]; against the Revolution, nothing.”  And earlier, he said: “No-one has ever supposed that all men, or all writers, or all artists ought to be revolutionaries, just as no-one could suppose that all men or all revolutionaries ought to be artists, nor that every honest man, by the fact of being honest, ought to be revolutionary.  To be revolutionary is also an attitude toward life, to be revolutionary is also an attitude toward existent reality (…)” And, he said: “The Revolution should try to win over the majority of the people through its ideas; the Revolution should never give up counting on the majority of the people; counting, not just on the revolutionaries, but on all honest citizens that although they may not be revolutionary, in other words; those who although they may not have a revolutionary attitude toward life, would be on her side.”

Dialogue and debate are requirements for which we assume full responsibility.  Knowing that we’re not dialoguing or debating the archaeology of monoclonal cells, but our lives, the future of our children.  Therefore, passion is inevitable, and I would say, necessary.  This passion does not diminish the “scientific” reach of the arguments; it illuminates them.  And something more: he who lacks passion, who cannot bring his feelings, his emotions to the debate, lacks a real objectivity.  One cannot speak – for or against – the Revolution, without feeling it.  And one must differentiate the insults of those who have no arguments or those who would try to silence their opponents (this is the real meaning of “cyber-chancleteo“), from the “qualifiers,” sometimes indispensable in order to understand the position being refuted.  To say “counter-revolutionary,” or “mercenary” when the shoe fits, is to grant an essential argument to the discourse.  Hiding these qualifiers is to obstruct understanding of the facts.  Dispensing with solid arguments, repeated but true, only because they’ve been used before is to weaken revolutionary discourse.

When an individual lends himself to street theatre well financed by transnational media – these media who don’t want to report anything besides that which has been previously established in the script for subversive correspondence, and align themselves with the interests that openly act to topple socialism in Cuba, find themselves facing the people.  Assume the codes of war for power.  The Revolution has the right to defend herself.  And she will.  And the hundreds of thousands of Cubans who defend her will be there to shout “Viva Fidel!” and “Viva Socialismo!”  Revolutionaries know how to debate and we also know how to fight.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Generation Y: The Cyber-Tragicomedy of Yoani Sánchez – Español

By Ana R. for CubAlMater

Translation: Machetera

Today my distinguished Communications College, located at G Street, between 21st and 23rd St., was witness to a singular event: the attempt by Reinaldo Escobar, Yoani Sánchez’s husband, to put on a show, and the response given him by the people who found him on that corner in the city center.

When I came out of classes, I saw a multitude of people.  Cameras, photographers, live entertainment by the University Students’ Federation, ordinary Cubans, revolutionary slogans, Reinaldo fleeing along G Street, helped by two young men: I saw it all.  What a shame I didn’t have a camera to take photos!  For this reason, I’m linking to the following pages in which some of the images have been published:

Yohandry’s Weblog

La República

Cambios en Cuba

The subject of Yoani keeps coming up in the blogosphere and throughout the Internet in general.  Until now, I haven’t dealt with it because for me, everything’s pretty clear and there’s not much point raining on something that’s already wet.  But now the time has come, and I have a few ideas to point out in this regard.  And in order to come at it from a different direction, let’s start at the present and go backwards:

1. What Reinaldo Escobar did this afternoon was completely senseless, a pretty pathetic performance.
2. Two weeks ago, Yoani wasn’t attacked by anyone.  There’s no proof.  It’s all part of her media show.
3. You’ve got to be pretty naïve to believe that Barack Obama himself actually answered her “seven questions.”  But even taking these answers into account, surely written by a propaganda team or something like it, what’s new?  Some new kind of declaration from the U.S. government?  No.  Nothing new.  It’s the same hollow rhetorical discourse as ever.
4. With the latest developments it has become clear who is behind the Yoani phenomenon: the United States.  Servers in Europe, a blog in more than 15 languages, capacity to host videos, thousands of fleeting comments produced in short order…that’s all.  Nobody working alone from cyber-cafes in a country with the kind of connectivity problems Cuba has, could maintain something like that.
5. Prizes everywhere you look…Okay, the granting of prizes is generally a farce, that’s not news.  Who believes that this woman is one of the most influential people in the entire world?  It’s laughable.
6. In her blog, Yoani doesn’t defend any kind of ideology, because she has none.  She rails against everything to the left and right, against everything surrounding her, period. End of story.  Why does she do it?  Because that’s what they pay her to do.
7. Yoani calls for “freedom of expression” but it’s possible that what she says in her blog is neither her own expression, nor does it reflect her most personal interests.  Let me explain.  What would be best for her is that this country’s Revolution continue, because she lives off the business of counter-revolution, and if there’s no Revolution, there goes her little job, her little dollars.
8. Yoani and her entourage are a sad little group of mercenaries.
9. The Generación Y blog is a cyber-tragicomedy.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

When Reinaldo Escobar made the announcement that he’d challenge Cuban state security to a weaponless duel to avenge the indignities he and his wife claimed (without the slightest proof) had been visited upon her, the announcement was dutifully broadcast by the foreign media in Havana.  It seemed to me to be a rather pitiful display and I imagined Reinaldo waiting alone at a street corner, attended by no-one else but the foreign reporters he had summoned.  But there were two things I failed to take into account: 1) Reinaldo’s not that smart, and 2) had I been in Havana I would have known that there was something off about his selection of time and location, since apparently the airwaves were full of announcements about the book fair being sponsored by the Young Communists Union for that same time, same location.  Of course this was not mentioned in a single one of the reports announcing the “duel.”

Hmm.  What would have happened if Machetera had shown up dressed in a Che t-shirt and holding a sign that said Viva Fidel outside Lázaro González’s home in Miami while Elian González was being held hostage?  Would we have had Mary Murray reporting to NBC that it was surprising that the police didn’t do a better job of controlling the crowd?  Hmmm…..

The most hilarious thing in the whole pathetic episode is watching Escobar be hustled away by the same security men he’d challenged to the duel in the first place.  See the video below, at about the 19 second mark.

The Cuban People are Tired of Yoani Sánchez – Español

By Guillermo Nova for La República – Havana

Translation by Machetera

On Friday, November 20, Reinaldo Escobar, the husband of Yoani Sánchez, tried to disrupt an event at the closing of the University Fair for Books and Reading (FULL) at the intersection of 23rd Street and Presidents Avenue, in Havana, but it turned out badly.

When Havana’s youth came to enjoy reduced price books and performances by various musical groups, the husband of the Cuban blogger planted himself before the foreign press in attendance and said that he was there to carry out a duel in response to the supposed aggression visited upon his wife the prior week.

The Cubans were fed up with the provocation and with the conga rhythm going, the young people participating in the event began to shout spontaneously, “This street is revolutionary” and “down with gusano [worm] crap,” or “Raul will hit those yankees hard!”

The curious thing is that the security agents who Yoani Sánchez has so often denounced for hounding her and acting aggressively towards her, were those who had to hustle her husband away so that he would not have to suffer the wrath of a crowd that has grown tired of so many provocations.

The supposed aggression that Sánchez denounced was completely discounted in declarations made exclusively to La Repúblca by the same doctors who attended her and could not find any bruising whatsoever.  Moreover, Sánchez was in agreement with the medical examination performed.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Tejero Molina addresses the Spanish Congress, 1981

The U.S. Government and the World’s Great Media Empires Are Using “Mercenary Bloggers” in Their Offensive Against Cuba – Español

By J.P. for La República

Translation: Machetera

The world’s great media empires have undertaken a merciless offensive against the Cuban revolution, offering spectacular coverage to any kind of mercenary blogger movement such as that of Yoani Sánchez or her husband, who receive a spectacular amount of money for the articles they write against the Cuban government and against a supposed censorship that appears rather insignificant in the light of the wide coverage they obtain worldwide.

Last week it was Yoani who issued a denunciation for having been attacked by Cuban agents, but not only was she unable to show any kind of proof of the attack, the doctors who attended her, who were interviewed by La República, did not find any evidence of any kind of aggression.  Later, it would be her husband, Reinaldo Escobar, who would denounce being hit and attacked by a crowd who reacted to his attempted provocation, with shouts in favor of the Cuban revolution.  However, Escobar did not suffer even a scratch from this supposedly “uncontrolled mob.”

These events also coincide with the President of the United States, Barack Obama, elevating Yoani Sánchez to the altars of imperialism by answering a series of questions that she posed and congratulating her for her anti-Castro blog.  It just so happens that Obama didn’t waste a moment in answering the questions of the mercenary blogger but still has not answered a series of questions that he was sent months ago by Fidel Castro himself.  Questions such as “Is it correct that the President of the United States should order the assassination of any person worldwide, no matter what the pretext?” “Is it ethical that the President of the United States should order the torture of other human beings?”  “Is state terrorism an instrument that ought to be used by a country as powerful as the United States so that peace might exist on the planet?” Or, “Is an Adjustment Law that only applies as a punishment against one single country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even though it takes the lives of innocent children and mothers?  If it’s a good thing, why is the right to automatic residency not granted to the Haitians, Dominicans and those from the rest of the Caribbean countries, as well as the Mexicans, Central and South Americans who die like flies along the wall at the Mexican border or in the waters of the Atlantic and Pacific,” among others.

However, governmental support for the salaried bloggers doesn’t come only from the United States.  Apparently, in Spain, next week the Congress of Deputies will debate its support for Yoani Sánchez, the “defender of freedom,” and opposition to the supposed persecution “that the Cuban regime maintains against Yoani Sánchez and other democrats in the Caribbean country.”

It’s curious that there should be a debate over the support of someone who claims to be censored and yet enjoys ubiquitous international media coverage, of someone who says she’s been attacked but cannot provide any proof of the attacks, and who claims to be a defender of freedom and democracy in Cuba but doesn’t hesitate to ally herself with the United States, a country that for the past 50 years has attacked her country, militarily and economically.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Operation Marketing

Esteban N. Martínez for CubaDebate – (Español): Operación Marketing

Translation: Machetera

The interview President Barack Obama granted the “blogger” Yoani Sánchez is the culmination of a project I feel like calling Operation Marketing; aimed as it is at the promotion and visibility of a new counter-revolutionary figure in Cuba, in the face of the worn out and battered “dissidence,” fighting like a pack of wolves with fangs bared in search of their prey…money.

The promotion of Yoani Sánchez began some time ago, when Grupo PRISA granted her the Ortega y Gasset prize and another publication put her on their list of the “World’s  (100) Most Influential People,” although in her country she was completely unknown.

The torrent of prizes and recognition began to fall like “manna from heaven,” while press agencies, newspapers and websites, for the most part run by the rightwing, gave her the space to make her visible to the eyes of the world.

From the very beginning, Generación Y, the media platform designed for this digital project, counted on a broad architecture: German servers, replication in 18 languages and other technological means to set up the machinery, conceived outside Cuba and launched on the Internet under the duplicitous label of sourcing from Cuba.

Whoever has followed Yoani’s trajectory and those who sponsor her, know how the “blogger’s” positions have gone from a lukewarm criticism of the revolutionary Cuban project, to more openly aggressive ones, in search of a confrontation.

One of the first actions in this escalation had to do with the self-titled musician Gorki Águila, when the new “star” of citizen journalism launched a campaign in favor of the rocker, who’d starred in more than one scandal, but that story dissolved when the Cuban authorities only fined him.  According to Yoani they tried to sentence him to a long prison term and now he’s wandering about elsewhere.

The Havana Book Fair was the other stage chosen by those who pay Yoani Sánchez to make her presence felt.  At that event and to a miniscule audience, she was the star in another production staged on the outskirts of the main event dedicated to books and reading in Cuba.

Afterwards, there were other activities outside the Cuban capital. Yoani took her Ortega y Gasset prize to leave it at the shrine to the Virgin “Caridad del Cobre” in Santiago on the eastern end of the island, taking advantage of the trip to try to seek converts, manipulating and deceiving young people in order to try to get them to jump in her counter-revolutionary car, and then doing the same at the other end of the island, Pinar del Río, where she went with the same subversive intentions.

For “PRISA’s daughter” as she had now come to be known by certain media, she aligned herself increasingly with the enemies of the revolution, appearing frequently in articles and interviews with Radio Martí and Miami’s El Nuevo Herald, mouthpieces for the most retrograde positions and loudspeaker for the Cuban-American mafia located in Florida.

The story of skirmishes and other incidents is a long one, as she began to seek at all costs to make herself visible; counting on the complacency of the major media, charged by shadowy forces with making people believe that there is a transcendent political figure in Cuba who is opposed to the project which sustains the Cuban people.

With this voluminous record, Yoani Sánchez and her sponsors began the real Operation Marketing in recent weeks, beginning with a ridiculous episode: the “blogger” showed up disguised as a German tourist at a debate sponsored by Temas magazine, where to her surprise she was recognized, despite her wig, colorful clothing and garish handbag.

Coming off badly in the eyes of the “Montagues and Capulets,” Generación Y’s queen began to weave a new story, where she reported to the four winds that she’d been “kidnapped,” and beaten by state security agents.

Without cross-checking the facts and without verifying anything, plenty of media ran with the story about the “kidnapping” and “beating” of the famous “blogger.”  Hundreds of articles circled the planet from one end to the other on that story, which Yoani herself could not back up, even with the BBC, when she could not present any proof of the blows she’d received.

But not everyone got on the boat of lies, and many have been questioning the script.  One skeptic was the La República newspaper, who went to look for the doctors who attended Yoani and found that none of them found the least physical evidence for the supposed aggression.

Certainly, in a country where even lost dogs are called for on the radio by their owners, it sounded odd, like a media fabrication; something that even “classic dissidents” could appreciate once they saw their dollars endangered, heading now toward the “competition.”  In a desperate attempt to call for attention, Martha Beatriz Roque and her acolytes put on their own “show,” complete with “hunger strike” and news of her “serious health problems,” but the climax was yet to come, and it came on Thursday with Obama’s answers to Yoani Sánchez’s questionnaire.

Doubting the legitimacy of the answers and wondering whether they were written by Obama or his advisers adds nothing to the debate.  What’s interesting are the questions and the head of the empire’s answers to them.

Yoani Sánchez’s questions were aimed at subjects that would allow the person being asked the ability to drive forward his points of view, trying to blame the Cuban side for not moving forward on a path to better relations on both sides of the Florida Straits.  Questions about essential subjects in the Cuba-United States dispute remained outside the journalistic realm of inquiry.

The economic and financial blockade by the world’s greatest power against the Cuban people was barely hinted at, left aside, without delving into the billions of dollars that this criminal policy has caused the Cuban economy and which constitutes the biggest drag on the island’s economy.  Nor were the effects or strategies of a blockade designed to “kill through hunger or disease” and which has caused so much suffering for the Cuban family and is today repudiated by the entire planet, touched upon.

Nor were the consequences of the biological war against Cuba promoted by previous administrations among the questions – a war which through the introduction of plagues and illnesses damaged crops, animals and caused the death of Cubans, including more than a hundred children, when murderous hands introduced the dengue virus during the 1980’s.

The inconsistent position of the North American government in the struggle against terrorism was off the table, whereby a confessed killer like Luís Posada Carriles struts around the streets of Miami along with other terrorists and not a finger is lifted to extradite him to Venezuela, where he is wanted for blowing up a civilian Cuban airliner with 73 people on board, while five anti-terrorist fighters are enduring long sentences following a dirty, rigged trial in Miami, the capital of terrorism against Cuba.

The consequences of the Cuban Adjustment Act, a legal monstrosity classified as a “murderous law” for its role in promoting and stimulating illegal departures from Cuba, the cause of a slew of incidents and a long list of deaths in the waters of the Florida Straits, and which today fosters an unscrupulous business in human trafficking involving the Miami mafia along with criminals from other countries – also off the table.

The presidential response to the questioner about military intentions against Cuba is contradicted by factual reality; a Fourth Fleet armed to the teeth is sailing throughout the region, the permanency of the illegal Guantánamo Naval Base on a portion of Cuban soil and the construction of seven North American military bases in Colombia tell a different tale and constitute a threat not only to Cuba but to the entire continent.

Beyond questions and answers, the intention of Yoani Sánchez and those who promote her is to gain greater global visibility in a Marketing Operation, a game which Barack Obama has joined, whether consciously or encouraged by his advisers, and one which leads to a well worn path where he will find that the firmness of the Cuban people is an insurmountable hurdle.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

John William Waterhouse - Echo and Narcissus

Obama’s Best Response to Yoani Sánchez - Español

M.H. Lagarde

Translation: Machetera

If anyone is still in doubt about the path of this media freak show that’s come to be known as Yoani Sánchez, the interview that President Barack Obama ended up granting the Cuban mercenary should dispel all suspicions.

It’s pretty surprising that the president of the world’s foremost power, who right now has a war going on two fronts, who faces the opposition of the most reactionary right-wing in the United States due to his proposal to reform the healthcare system, who’s incapable of reducing unemployment generated by the economic crisis, who’s barely said a word about the coup d’etat in Honduras and sows discord between Colombia and Venezuela through new U.S. military bases, should make a hole in his very busy schedule of touring and appearances to answer the questions of a Cuban mercenary blogger.

It would be naïve to ask oneself this time if the President of the United States knows who he’s dealing with.  If Obama knows that the blogger with whom he’s wasting his precious time dedicates herself to manipulating, with subversive intentions, children in Cuban churches.  Or if he knows that the mercenary is an irredeemable liar.

If this is not a new farce by the blogger, the only possible explanation for Obama condescending to this interview is that he received, through the intelligence services of his country, the recommendation that he respond to the blogger’s questionnaire, in order to endorse the “dissident” of the moment in Cuba.

Racket or no, this has been the best response from Obama to Yoani Sánchez, because it makes it perfectly clear where this clownish media toy who is our mercenary blogger was created.  By granting her an interview, the President of the United States has put an end to the complicated subterfuges of using third countries such as Spain, Poland, Germany, etc., in order to mask what now is more than obvious: the fact that the mercenary is a puppet made in Langley’s propaganda laboratories, a genuine Made-in-the-U.S.A. product.

With this gesture, Obama legitimizes the so-called Plan Bush to topple the Cuban revolution, and makes it his own.  Coming out of the closet, the U.S. leader makes it clear that, despite his smiles, his Fred Astaire moves and even his wit, nothing has changed, nor will it change, in respect to Washington’s politics toward Cuba.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Cuba: Broadband and Other Such Matters – Español

by Nelson P. Valdés for Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque)

I’m singing
When the cat’s away
The mice will play
Political violence fill ya city
Yeah-ah
Don’t involve rasta in your say-say
Rasta don’t work for no CIA
- Bob Marley + the Wailers

On October 29, the Cuban magazine Temas held its monthly meeting/debate, which has come to be known as “Last Thursday [of the month].”  The discussion was to be about the Internet and Cuban culture.  This in itself is an enormously complex topic in today’s world, and still more complicated in Cuba’s case since all access to and use of the Internet has been politicized by those in opposition to the island’s government.  The Internet, at the same time, has become just one more instrument used by the United States government to project its foreign policy and influence internal processes in the rest of the world. [1]

During the discussion on Internet and culture held by Temas, Yoani Sánchez asked for and received the opportunity to speak.  Her first question was in regard to whether broadband has anything to do with not allowing the majority of Cubans to have access to the Internet.

I’ve dealt with the subject of Internet and Cuba before. [2]  In that essay I presented the thesis that bandwidth is an essential element in shaping the topology and architecture a country’s connectivity will have and that in itself affects the number of users and the speed of data transmission. This is now well known by the general public, but it was not as known years ago. The thesis, of course, is based on the cost of connectivity (digital lines, servers, routers, etc.) and furthermore, the consideration as to whether the access is obtained by satellite or another medium.  In highly industrialized countries, the per person user cost would be much lower, since the necessary infrastructure would be within reach for people with sufficient resources – in other words, economies of scale would reduce the per user cost.  For a smaller population with lesser income, the cost of connectivity tends to increase drastically.

These economic factors are usually not considered in the debate over Cuban connectivity.  However, there is a “digital divide” on a global level.  This same inequality is also found within societies.  The inequality in high-speed Internet access can be found even in the most developed societies.

The user model of the capitalist world that is based on individual usage, through a household or handheld computer – that the majority of the world’s poor does not possess – must also be taken into consideration.

Furthermore, it must be noted that the Internet, by its nature, breaks with an entire series of old parameters.  First, it breaks with logical and sequential thought and argumentation.  Hyper-connection destroys historical sensibility.  There’s no beginning, middle or end.  Now the jump is made from one side to another without rhyme or reason – connectivity provides no real judgment of sources. It’s not easy to determine whether or not an information source is reliable.  Most all of the information is commercial.  Someone has to pay to post, send or receive it.

There’s nothing surprising in thinking that this technology would be liberating.  Technological determinism is nothing new.  The same was thought of the radio, the television, the telephone, the telegraph, and now it’s said of the PC, Twitter, Bluetooth, etc.; that they will contribute to the democratization of societies.  Such projections conquer the logic of the naive, politicians and opportunists alike.  The inherent implications of the Internet are not as clear-cut as with political, social or economic systems, but they do affect our own epistemology and cultural values.  The social and personal relations between people occupying a common geographical space and the already famous “social networks” in virtual space are not the same. Calling someone by telephone is not the same as reaching out and “touching someone” no matter what the ads try to sell us.

It’s clear however, that the debate over the Internet inside and throughout Cuba assumes premises inherent to highly developed countries.  The question about broadband should be answered by Cuban authorities charged with such matters.  However, it’s worth mentioning that the Obama administration has decided to spend no less than $6.3 billion dollars toward improving U.S. broadband penetration. Although the U.S. has the largest broadband market in the OECD countries, about 70 million subscribers, as a proportion of its total population with broadband it ranks 15th.[3]

A single person using YouTube, HDTV, and others require bandwidth of 8 megabits per second in both directions to be functional. All of Cuba, using its present infrastructure, can download 65 megabits and upload 124. The virtual dissidents, therefore, can only be sending their images using a connectivity that is not depending on the Cuban state resources; otherwise, all of Cuba would have to stop to allow them to upload their materials to YouTube and the like.

There are some pertinent questions that we ought to ask of the virtual Yoanis found in Cuba, and who evidently have been able to access the Internet even though the entire country’s broadband access is insufficient. Their experiences might have a positive impact on those with lesser resources.

What is broadband?  What is its importance?  And how much does it cost? [33% of U.S. Internet users do NOT have broadband.] However, in the U.S., high speed cable modem is available to 96% of end-users and 79% of them have DSL.
In the majority of poor countries neither of the three is widely available.  Steve Song, a specialist on the subject of broadband from the International Development Research Center noted in 2008 that “the average university in Africa has the same aggregate bandwidth as a single home user in North America or Europe.” He also noted that the typical university in Africa “pays more than 50 times for this bandwidth than their counterparts in Europe or North America do for much more capacity.” [4]

What is the relationship between broadband, its use, and cost?  This is a cost that Cuba might not be able to provide to everyone as an entitlement or as Cubans say “me toca”. Finland, this past October, made 1 megabit broadband a legal right to begin July 2010. France, on the other hand, has established that Internet access is a “basic” human right [speed does not count]. But you have to pay for it.

As the Mexican comedian Cantinflas used to say: “En el detalle está la diferencia” – It is the little detail that makes the difference. The French initiative says nothing about affordability; the private person has to pay. The Helsinki Times reports that the meaning of a “legal right” is that no household “would be farther than 2 kilometers from a connection capable of delivering broadband Internet with a capacity of at least 100 megabits of data a second.” Thus, the superhighway will be nearby, it is up to you, nonetheless, to pay for the connection.[5]

On November 6th, Business Week, approvingly, noted that the European Parliament has “abandoned a bid to declare Internet access a fundamental right.” Five months earlier, Cuban dissident bloggers issued a statement proclaiming the right of access to Internet.[6]

The foreign press stationed in Cuba claims that a dissident in Havana has a blog that is translated into 16 or more languages and has from 1 to 14 million visits a month. That is impressive for anyone worldwide. For someone in Cuba it borders on a Fatima-like miracle.[7]

From a logistical standpoint, this is an unusual accomplishment. Is it possible for such traffic to be handled by Cuba today? Who is/are the administrator[s] of the web pages in all these languages?  Translation is complicated, time-consuming, and a worldwide translation team is costly. How is this work done? How is it paid for?  And what is the mechanism for transferring this payment?

In Cuba, it’s not possible for a person to earn enough to maintain these costly services and systems.  Yet, the  blogs exist. Someone or some institution has to incur costs to access the Internet, Twitter, etc. Perhaps there are good Samaritans. Perhaps…

We do know that the  USAID Cuba Program financially supports “independent journalists” within the island.[8] Is this also the case with the “independent bloggers”?

In fact, United States foreign policy has as one of its foundations the premise that the Internet could elicit regime change. That is why the US Treasury Department has informed Google and Microsoft to allow chat services into Cuba. [9]

The U.S. Department of Defense provides some indication that the Internet should be utilized to fulfill United States government objectives – i.e. targeting “regime change”.  This includes, “develop[ing] a global web site supporting U.S. strategic communications objectives” where “contents should be primarily from third parties with greater credibility to foreign audiences than U.S. officials.” Moreover, the same report notes that the Pentagon should “identify and disseminate the views of third party advocates that support U.S. positions. These sources may not articulate the U.S. position the way that the USG would, but they may nonetheless have a positive influence.” [10]

There are numerous US private contractors and universities around that are more than willing to serve the interests of empire although claiming “complete independence” from Washington’s foreign policy. [11]

Which Internet, then?

Is Internet the technology with the capacity to enhance and liberate human potential, knowledge, understanding and cooperation among nations? Or, is it one more  instrument to be used, as in the past, to maintain and extend the unequal exchanges and power relations that have existed between the nations of the world? That is a struggle that is presently fought throughout the world. Is Internet a public forum or is it a commercial enterprise? That is the debate going on in the United States and other capitalist societies.[12] It is a struggle within Cuba itself, where national self determination and
American hegemony confront each other in numerous and not so obvious ways.

BIBLIOGRAPHY:

[1] New Inequality Frontiers: Broadband Internet Access by Economic Policy Institute, 2006].

[2] 03/09/08 – Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) – Cuba and Information Technology – 2001[Part 1]
http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45032&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h=
03/10/08 – Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) – Cuba and Information Technology – 2001 [Part 2]
http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45055&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h=
03/09/08 – Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) – Cuba and Information Technology – 2001[Part 3]
http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45100&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h=
03/12/08 – Cuba-L Analysis (Albuquerque) – Cuba and Information Technology [Final]
http://cuba-l.unm.edu/?nid=45151&q=Nelson%20P%20Valdes%20and%20Internet&h=

[3] Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, broadband Growth and Policies in OECD Countries, Seoul, Korea, 17-18 June 2008. OECD Ministerial Meeting. http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/32/57/40629067.pdf and
Bill Schrier, Third World Broadband – In the United States. See:
http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/CCIO/2009/03/third-world-broadband-in-the-u.php

[4] IDRC, Acacia news, February 2008.
http://www.idrc.ca/en/ev-122116-201-1-DO_TOPIC.html and Indrajt Basu, “Not All Americans View Broadband as Necessity, But Finland’s Another Story,” [October 26, 2009.] See:
http://www.digitalcommunitiesblogs.com/international_beat/

[5] http://www.helsinkitimes.fi/htimes/domestic-news/politics/3179.html

[6] http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/nov2009/gb2009116_710422.htm
and the bloggers statement:
http://bottup.com/200906014676/Internet/comunicado-para-defender-los-derechos-en-cuba.html

[7] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoani_S%C3%A1nchez

[8] http://www.usaid.gov/locations/latin_america_caribbean/cuba/photogallery/cu01.html

[9]“US Wants Microsoft to End Message Ban in Iran,Cuba” Bloomberg, October 29, 2009.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/bloomberg/20091029/pl_bloomberg/afpeerwgcyla_1

[10] U. S. Department of Defense, Information Operations Roadmap, 30 October 2003, p. 27.
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB177/info_ops_roadmap.pdf

[11] A case in point is the Berkman Center for Internet & Society at Harvard Law School and its Internet and Democracy Project which has a 2 year grant of $1.5 million from the US Department of State’s Middle East Partnership Initiative.
http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/idblog/the-internet-and-democracy-project/

[12] “FCC Set To Take On Aggressive Role As Internet Traffic Cop, “SiliconValley.com, October 20, 2009. See:
http://www.siliconvalley.com/sectors/ci_13603357

I would like to thank Machetera, Rafael Hernandez, Saul Landau, Robert Sandels and Louis Head for their assistance with translation, editing and offering numerous comments.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Gerardo Hernández with bird

This is How it All Began - Español

By Alicia Jrapko

Translation: Machetera

Once upon a time, a bird made friends with a prisoner.  Both were incarcerated in the United States and both were unjustly imprisoned for defending Cuba from terrorist activity.

This is how the story began.  On June 4, 2009, the same day as his birthday, Gerardo Hernández heard about this creature.  He found out about it through a prisoner whose last name was Lira, who worked in the prison factory.  Lira and a guard were cleaning the roof with a pressure hose and without meaning to or perhaps without knowing, they destroyed a nest that contained three chicks.  Two of them died instantly but one remained alive.  They were so tiny that they didn’t even have any feathers.  It’s possible that they had just barely hatched.

The guard was visibly moved, and feeling responsible, allowed Lira to bring the chick secretly inside the prison to try to save it.  The prisoner arrived with the chick in the palm of his hand and not knowing what to do with it, began to ask the other prisoners what to do.  Someone suggested: “Ask Cuba [the nickname the prisoners had given Gerardo]; he likes animals and surely he will know what to do.”  That’s how Gerardo came to be summoned, and he came to the cell where they kept the bird.

Gerardo’s first reaction was to whistle, imitating what he imagined the chick’s mother would have done.  He moved his fingers as though they were little wings.  Miraculously, the little bird opened its beak.  Gerardo began to give it breadcrumbs and later, dipped his fingers in water and let the drops fall softly into the little bird’s beak.

Gerardo didn’t want to take the bird to his cell, but every day he went to feed it.  The problem was that at the beginning, the bird didn’t want to take food from anyone except Gerardo.  One day it occurred to Gerardo to offer the chick a few slivers of fish, and afterwards the rascal didn’t want breadcrumbs any more.  His feathers began to grow and so Gerardo taught it to eat on its own.  He put the bits of food in the palm of his hand and the little bird came fearlessly.

However, the prisoners were worried.  If an inspection were to happen, the little bird would be a problem.  Since he was already quite a bit bigger, they let him loose in the patio so that he might fly free.  The bird flew a little while and then returned to Gerardo’s shoulder.  Every time he tried to fly with the other birds, they rejected him with little pecks.  Little by little he gained confidence.  Gerardo went alone to the wing where his cell was, but when he returned to the patio, the bird also returned to see him.

Once there were many prisoners in the patio.  Someone told Gerardo that the bird was perched on the concertina wire surrounding the prison.  Gerardo whistled, and in front of all the prisoners, the little bird appeared out of nowhere and landed on his shoulder.  Incredible.  Everyone talked about it.

The little bird was named Cardinal, because Gerardo had painted its tailfeathers with a red marker to distinguish him from all the rest. The ink affected the bird a bit.  It lost its tail feathers but only for a little while.  Later they grew back, in their natural color.  However, the name remained: Cardinal.

On a different occasion another prisoner found the little bird in the patio with its beak stretched open.  It was very hot, and the bird was thirsty.  Gerardo gave it water.  He hid the bird under his hat in order to go inside without the bird being seen.  Of course the guards realized he had something odd on his head. “What’s under the hat?” they asked, and Gerardo answered, “Nothing.” Cardinal answered as well, whistling like crazy.  “Don’t tell me you’re training him to take messages to Fidel,” said one of the guards, laughing.

The story didn’t end there.  Gerardo brought the bird to his cell and made a nest for him to stay there with him.  He played with him, letting him rest on his shoulder, or on his head.  When Gerardo was writing, the bird came to play and Gerardo would pet him gently, to calm him.  So Cardinal would run along his back, where he’d be out of reach. Sometimes he curled up inside Gerardo’s collar and slept there.  Or he pecked at his friend’s ear and when Gerardo moved his head, he’d go for the other ear.

Once when Gerardo had let Cardinal go, he flew toward the cafeteria and landed on the plate of a very large, tough prisoner who was eating a piece of chicken.  The prisoner caught the bird in his hands, meaning to strangle him and someone shouted, “Don’t kill him!  He belongs to Cuba.”  The outcry took the prisoner by surprise.  He let Cardinal go and asked, surprised, “And who the hell is Cuba?”

Gerardo was actually very worried.  A certain guard was not showing any mercy toward the little bird.  During an inspection, the guard had forced Gerardo to let Cardinal go, and closed the door behind him.  The little bird returned later, completely exhausted.  Gerardo let him rest for a few days inside his cell.  And then came the lockdown (solitary confinement as punishment for all prisoners), and whenever there’s a lockdown, there are inspections.

When Gerardo heard that they were checking all the space between the floor and the door, he pushed Cardinal outside.  Cardinal flew, within the wing where Gerardo’s cell was located.  When the guard arrived, he saw the box where Cardinal lived.  Gerardo said that this was where his friend lived, of his own free will: “The problem is that I take him outside and he returns; it’s not my fault.” “Look,” said the guard, gesturing as though to say he thought Gerardo was nuts, “if you think I’m going to believe that bird is going to return…” Gerardo whistled from his cell and the guard froze in his tracks as he watched the bird return.  Cardinal had no problem picking out the cell belonging to his friend, among the huge array of cells on two floors that looked exactly alike.

Cardinal arrived at Gerardo’s cell.  He looked at him through the bars but couldn’t enter (since this was lockdown).  He waited there nervously, until Gerardo couldn’t stand it any more and opened the slot where food was delivered, and Cardinal came in.  A few days later there was another inspection.  When the guards arrived at Gerardo’s cell, he told them that he had a small bird, so they wouldn’t be scared if the bird should happen to fly overhead.  He was told that he had to release it, but since none of them could catch the bird, they brought Gerardo to the entrance for the entire wing so that he could let it go himself.  Since they were in lockdown, Gerardo and the little bird walked down the passageway, escorted by the guards.  All the other prisoners saw them through the bars of their cells and began to shout: “They’re taking Cuba and the bird to the hole!” as they banged their doors in protest.  The guard shouted, “Calm down!  He’s not going to the hole; we’re just going to free the bird!”

That was the last time that Gerardo saw Cardinal.  The lockdown lasted a month while the wing was completely shut down.  Gerardo couldn’t leave and Cardinal couldn’t enter.  The little bird had been inside this rough high-security prison since Gerardo’s birthday, from June 4th, and he remained there until July 16th, one day after the wedding anniversary of Gerardo and his wife, Adriana.

And that’s the end of this (true) story.

Alicia Jrapko wrote this story from memory, two hours after hearing it from Gerardo during a visit to the maximum security prison in Victorville, California.  Gerardo later revised and corrected the text, which Alicia plans to present to Casa Editora Abril so that it can be published as a children’s story.  Gerardo is incarcerated under a double life sentence plus 15 years, for unproven charges made against him in a highly prejudiced trial in Miami.

Gerardo Hernández Nordelo was born in Havana on June 4, 1965; the third child of Gerardo Hernández Martí and Carmen Nordelo Tejera, both deceased.  He is a graduate of the Raúl Roa García Foreign Services Institute (ISRI).  One year before graduating, he and his wife Adriana Pérez O’Connor were married.  He is a cartoonist and graphic artist who has worked in both Cuba and the United States.  In the mid-1990’s, he served missions in the United States, designed to protect Cuba from the terrorist actions planned and executed by counter-revolutionary organizations located in Miami.  On September 12, 1998, he was arrested along with four other men and subjected to a trial plagued with irregularities and prejudice, in Miami.  He was convicted, without any evidence whatsoever, and sentenced to two life terms plus 15 years, which he is serving in a high security prison in Victorville, California.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Carlos Alberto Montaner

Is Carlos Montaner Really a CIA Agent? - Español

Analysis by Froilán Rodriguez

Translation: Machetera

In January of this year, the well-known writer and journalist Carlos Alberto Montaner granted an interview to Edmundo García in Miami, for his program “Night Moves.”  It was an interesting exchange, in which both defended their positions, although the intellectual came out rather badly against the moves made by the communicator.  On that occasion, the leader of the Unión Liberal Cubana stated unequivocally that he had never in his life been linked to U.S. intelligence.

However, this summer, we saw a controversy arise between Montaner and an unknown Cuban academic living in Denver, named Arturo López.  This fact in itself would be of little interest were it not that for the first time, the prominent anti-Castro man (Montaner) clearly admitted his access to information that at the least was confidential, hinting at specialized services, probably those of the CIA.

Arturo López Levy with Rosalynn and Jimmy Carter

It all started when López dared to criticize Montaner’s positions in relation to Honduras, in an article that he sent to the editors of the online publication Encuentro en la Red.  The article was not well received, nor was it published, mainly due to the fact that it attacked Montaner directly at a time when he was also under attack by the daily newspaper Granma, the official publication of Cuba’s only party.

Therefore, the professor, who says he’d sent other work to Encuentro, was forced to approach an alternative: Cubanuestra, in faraway Sweden, where his article was published, and the aggrieved Montaner was immediately made aware of it, resulting in an unexpected response.  And that is when the act occurred.

Not knowing his attacker, Montaner dedicated himself to his investigation, while various people warned him about the academic’s dubious background.  They told him that he’d changed his second last name in order to penetrate the Jewish community in Cuba, as an agent recruited when he studied in Havana at the Foreign Service Institute.  The sources added that he was an officer in the Armed Forces and they did not know if the information was publicly available, but without a doubt, the FBI and the Israelis were well aware of it, as well as the fact that there was a thick file on him.

Frankly this data took me by surprise for its unusual nature.  Immediately I consulted various search engines on the Internet and only was able to find academic references that confirmed his graduation from the aforementioned Cuban institute, where he was part of the island’s diplomatic corps, but nowhere could I find any reference whatsoever to a history of espionage.  And I asked myself: where did this data come from, who gave it to him, how much were they paid, how can it be known that anyone in this world is an agent, and more than anything, how would it be known that a file existed and how large it might be?

I haven’t the least doubt that this information is only possessed by the specialized services, and because this has to do with Cuba it cannot be anyone other than the CIA.  Nor do I believe that the agency hands over such data so easily.  And it’s curious, because Montaner  has grown tired of repeating that Cuban state security has mounted a campaign to discredit him as a terrorist and CIA agent; at least that’s what he told Edmundo García on that day back in January.  But if he doesn’t work for them, how does he explain his access to such reports?

Nor should it surprise us if we pay attention to his background.  It’s said that in his youth, he was condemned for terrorism in the middle of a wave of attempts against civilian objectives, in the wake of the Castros’ triumphant revolution.  After escaping from prison he left the country with a safe-conduct pass granted by a government and immediately joined the groups organized in the United States against those in power in Cuba.

He admits having trained only as a simple soldier in Fort Jackson during the Missile Crisis.  But the media counter that in reality he was at Fort Benning, as part of a unit in the U.S. Army, preparing itself as an operative group for the CIA, and it is even said that he was with the convicted terrorist Luis Posada Carriles.

On the other hand, Montaner says that he left Cuba in September of 1961, trained at the aforementioned base and in 1966 was employed as a professor of literature at a Puerto Rican university.  But he does not clarify where nor when he undertook his advanced education, what he graduated in and, most important, how he earned a living.  There’s a noticeable shadow over this stage of his life, in particular because in addition to not knowing what he did, there’s no logical explanation for how he managed to maintain himself and his family.  If to this it is added that many during that period enriched themselves through their work with the CIA, the picture becomes complete.

In 1970 he appeared in Madrid and, despite being bereft of resources, as he himself states, he founded a successful academic press to which he has dedicated himself up to the present day.  There are those who say that this new beginning in Spain was also at the hands of the CIA, which needed someone with his profile to play the game from Europe.  The truth is that his performance was appreciated, or he was a magician, or someone was generously supporting him.

The protection the magazine grants Montaner is striking.  If Granma accused Montaner of backing the Honduran putschists, Lopez’s work would have been a contribution for a public interested in knowing more about this anti-Castro foe and about his thinking.  For his part, he could have responded in a calm and reasoned way in order to clarify the concerns that are not restricted to the professor from Denver, but unfortunately, he didn’t do that.  One thing Encuentro did do was prominently feature an article by Lopez on another subject, as though to pre-empt further complaint.

But, intrigued by why this publication acted this way, I looked again on the Internet  and found that the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), accused by some of being a CIA front, gave $225,000 dollars to the Asociación Encuentro de la Cultura Cubana this year, which edits Encuentro, among other things.  It’s known that historically, this group has been a recipient of funds coming from the United States, specifically from USAID and the CIA, and so this figure should be surprising to no-one.

So one thing leads to another.  Montaner works for the CIA, is attacked by an unknown person and Encuentro, which receives money from an institution fronting for the U.S. government, protects him by not publishing the attack because it’s not an opportune moment.  In fact, what remains valid is that he who controls the purse, directs the show.

Therefore, Carlos Alberto Montaner’s past and present are dubious, and although he strains to deny it, they give off the whiff of a long term undercover operation that nobody can deny.  The truth is that they ought to do a better job of hiding it, to see if they can fool anyone.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the network of translators for linguistic diversity. This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.