Cuba’s Updated Migration Policy Totally Confounds the United States and the Micro-Republic of Miami 

Edmundo García

Translation: Machetera

On Monday, January 14, Cuba’s updated migration policy went into force and one of the listeners of my radio program, La Tarde se Mueve (Afternoon Moves) called in to say that it was as though the floor had been yanked right out from under the Miami critics of the Cuban revolution. They can’t figure out where to stand; they’re completely adrift in the comments they’re making on the radio, TV, and other regular press outlets.

At the end of the program, around 6 pm., I heard Willy Allen, the Cuban American immigration attorney tell Ramon Saul Sanchez on his program for La Poderosa (The Powerful One), “I believe that these measures are barely going to change the situation there (in Cuba),” while Sanchez responded, “But the dissident Guillermo Fariñas says that he’s been told he can go wherever he wants and then return.” Willy answered, “Oh, I didn’t know that, but look, there are hardly any exiles left. For the last 20 years the huge majority of those who come to Miami are immigrants.”

That’s exactly what we’ve been saying every day at La Tarde se Mueve; that this is one of the reasons for Cuba’s updating of its migration policy: the composition of Cuban emigration has changed, particularly in regard to the United States, where it occurs more for economic than political reasons, and this is a reality that must be taken into account. So it turns out that Willy Allen, the braintrust behind the Miami project known as “Repression ID,” dedicated to pursuing Cuban emigrants who’ve supposedly participated in crimes against human rights in Cuba, agrees with us.

The Cuban measures are so disconcerting that Miami’s Cuban American rightwing has been completely disoriented by them. So disoriented in fact that you can see it in Alfonso Chardy’s recent report at El Nuevo Herald about a meeting on U.S. immigration reform that took place in the offices of Congressman Mario Diaz-Balart in Doral. Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen also attended the meeting. The Cubans were not the main objective but the subject of Cuba’s updated migration policy came up and after both threatened to change or eliminate the Cuban Adjustment Act, Diaz-Balart played stupid, saying that these were proposals made by other congressional representatives, other colleagues; while Ileana later swore up and down that she had no plans or intentions regarding eliminating or changing the Cuban Adjustment Act. That’s how confused they are; they can’t even get their story straight.

From Miami and other parts of the world, some tried to deny that the measures are anything new. Since among the skeptics there are some honest people who have nothing to do with the usual reactionaries, I want to say to them that in a way, it’s understandable that some don’t see a huge change in the Cuban migration situation, because for quite some time, these changes have been underway, gradually but convincingly. As was said from the beginning, this is an “updating” and not an overturning, apology or repentant revision of Cuban migration policy.

In a press conference offered on October 24, 2012, the Secretary of the Council of State, Homero Acosta, reported that according to official data, between the year 2000 and August 31 of 2012, 99.4% of the exit permits solicited by Cubans were granted. Only 0.6% were denied, for substantiated reasons. In that same period of time, some 941,953 persons traveled abroad for particular reasons, of which 120,975 did not return, a total of 12.8%. Of the total who traveled, 156,068 were university graduates and of those, 10.9% did not return.

According to Acosta, “these statistics confirm that the great majority of Cubans who travel abroad return to Cuba.” Which is to say that an abrupt change in Cuban migration policy does not exist, nor is there any need for one, since the image of Cuba as a tropical gulag or prison from which one cannot leave or enter – as the manipulative major media at the service of foreign interests have historically portrayed it – is simply untrue.

As the data show, Cubans who have really wanted to travel have been doing so regularly without many more limits than those that might exist in any other country. This was confirmed on Monday, January 14, when the new migration measures announced in Cuba’s Official Gazette last October went into force.

At none of the 195 official passport offices was there any kind of unusual crowd or fuss, as the disinformative blogger Yoani Sánchez tried to make it seem. This so-called reporter for the Spanish El País newspaper spent the morning at an immigration office in her neighborhood in Havana and was able to complete the paperwork to travel normally. As she herself acknowledged, she will only have to wait 15 days to collect her new passport; after all, it’s not Yoani’s first trip abroad.

What was definitely a lie was Yoani’s claim that at that hour of the morning there was a line of more than 70 people, with children clinging to their parents, all desperately seeking papers in order to leave Cuba. The Cuban journalist Manuel Lagarde posted photos of the place at his blog, Cambios en Cuba, along with photos of travel agencies and tour operators functioning normally in Havana, something that other media like BBC Mundo also reported- the offices were not mobbed by Cubans trying to leave the country.

The updating of the Cuban migration policy is not something left to chance; it’s a well-considered policy that comes at a very specific moment, following indications from Cuba’s president Raúl Castro in his speeches to the National Assembly, the Sixth Party Congress in 2011 and the National Party Conference in 2012. As Secretary Acosta also said, with these measures “Cuba is not seeking a stamp of approval” from anyone.

A report was drafted based on criteria supplied by a wide-ranging committee of specialists and leaders directed by General Abelardo Colomé Ibarra, that was later studied by the Cuban government, where the confluence of a series of factors supported an updating of the policy, among them, the existence of a change in the nature of Cuban emigration. As Colonel Lamberto Fraga, Second Chief at Cuba’s Immigration Directorate said, all policies and procedures were ready to be applied as the measures went into force last Monday.

But that Cuba should make it easier to leave and enter does not mean that it is leaving its national territory at the mercy of its enemies. There are two principles that should never be forgotten: The right of the revolution to defend itself and the right to safeguard the human capital that the revolution created.

How will this work in terms of travel permission for professionals in sensitive sectors like health and sports? It is a question that many have asked and will surely be answered in practice. For the moment, Cuban immigration authorities have made it clear that the people who may not travel, for reasons that are standard at the international level, are those with pending judicial processes, persons who must complete existing criminal sentences, persons who must perform military service (Military Service Law 75) and others who have something to do with questions of specific interest. A number of not entirely well-intentioned persons have asked if the so-called dissidents and opposition will be able to travel. The answer has been given. If they have no pending judicial problems, if they are not at the age of military service, etc., then they may travel, otherwise, no. That’s the law and there’s no reason for exceptions or particularities, so the staged media shows and campaigns are pointless, because Cuba will not be pressured.

As soon as the migration reform was announced in October of 2012, both Victoria Nuland and William Ostick, spokespersons for the U.S. State Department, tried to react with apparent indifference in order to avoid recognizing that the Cuban government had seized the initiative. Suddenly, having posed as champions of freedom to travel, they suggested pressuring third countries not to grant visas to Cubans, under the pretext that they might be used as “trampolines” in order to illegally enter the United States and take advantage of the so-called Cuban Adjustment Act.

Today it is truly indisputable that the United States is more restrictive about entrances to and exits from its territory, than Cuba.  As a result, the press puppets in Miami have been unable to do anything other than repeat the arguments emanating from Washington. Unlike Nuland however, who recently stated that although the United States is not going to change its policy, the Cuban immigration reform seems positive and consistent with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the principle of family unity, Miami’s extreme right-wing, led by Congresswoman Ros-Lehtinen, has dedicated itself to threatening in the local media to rescind the Cuban Adjustment Act as a way of punishing the Cubans.

The news has made Cuba watchers like Jaime Suchlicki appear to have totally lost it; he is claiming there will be a “slow-motion Mariel” exodus rather than a Camarioca of millions. Janisset Rivero of the so-called Democratic Directorate predicted lines several kilometers long at embassies in Havana. And Ninoska Pérez Castellón, having nothing much to say at all, preferred to ask her listeners, some of whom drove her crazy with their celebration of the Cuban migratory changes.

As my friend, the Cuban journalist Iroel Sánchez said, Cuba was ready for the immigration updates. Those who weren’t ready were that part of Miami that although it has yet to win, seems still not to have learned how to lose.

Edmundo García is the host of La Tarde se Mueve in Miami.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the international 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.

Jean-Guy Allard

English translation: Machetera - (español)

Now they don’t even bother to hide their worry: the same politicians who slandered Cuba for decades, saying Cubans “can’t travel,” and even going so far as to draft laws meant to push disaffected Cubans to hurl themselves into the sea, are now rushing to figure out how to stop Cubans from arriving in the United States and, in case they manage to arrive, how to stop them from returning to Cuba.

Victims of the traps they themselves set at the height of the Cold War, when the Cuban Revolution, criminally isolated by the blockade, was forced to protect itself by any means, including restrictive migration laws, the Cuban American members of Congress and their clan have suddenly realized that they’ve shot themselves in the foot.  The political structure manufactured to serve U.S. annexationist plans toward Cuba is on red alert and desperately seeking a solution to what it has announced is a dangerous and unexpected invasion by those it has pretended to be defending.

“Once the new Cuban immigration laws go into force, on January 14, a Cuban will be able to leave Cuba for two years without losing his residency, and during this time will be able to obtain residence in the United States after spending a year and a day here,” explains a Washington based U.S. immigration expert.

“This will create a new kind of Cuban-American, with dual-residency, making the Cuban Adjustment Act (CAA) completely obsolete and even counter-productive.  The U.S. will be under urgent pressure to change its “Cuban” policy in order to avoid this taking place.  And right in the middle of a full debate on immigration reform.”

Incredibly, near the end of an interview granted to her friends in the subsidized “anti-Castro” press, the head of the anti-Cuban political mafia in Washington, Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, announced that she wants to revise this heretofore untouchable law, a fundamental part of the legal framework developed against Cuba.

The reporter, well known for his collaboration with U.S. government funded Voice of America – Radio Martí, asked if she would support a change to close the gaps in the law in respect to those who claim political persecution and then go on to travel frequently to Cuba.

Ros-Lehtinen’s answer was as twisted as a hot New York pretzel.

“Yes, I’m in favor of a change to the CAA so that those who use this singular and unique benefit that is only available to Cuban nationals, cannot return to visit Cuba.”  She added reasoning that she might have applied for quite some time: “One cannot say that one is subjected to political persecution in Cuba, and then go back to visit.”

In June, one of Ros-Lehtinen’s colleagues, the legislator David Rivera, had already been talking about reforming the CAA in order to cancel the permanent residence granted to Cuban refugees who return to Cuba within five years after their entry to the United States.  In the meantime, the controversial Rivera – under investigation for a number of corruption charges – was kicked to the curb in November’s elections, ending up in history’s great rubbish bin, along with his proposed immigration changes.

The Cuban Adjustment Act, approved in 1966, grants U.S. residency to any Cuban who reaches U.S. territory, while hundreds of Mexicans are hunted down in the land of the free by armed border guards, not to mention the armed vigilantes working on behalf of the repressive national system.

But the most absurd treatment of the subject in the land of Groucho Marx was yet to come.  El Nuevo Herald, the shining example of made-in-Florida journalism published a headline regarding the changes without even realizing the magnitude of its error. “The United States Urges Cubans to Refrain from Heading to Sea in Response to New (Cuban) Immigration Reform.”

The article is based on statements by William Ostick, spokesman for the State Department’s Office of Western Hemisphere Affairs, acknowledging that the new Cuban immigration rules might trigger “changes” in the flow of immigrants coming from the island.

It goes on to explain that “The United States’ visa requirements will remain ‘unchanged,’ and a visa or other valid authorization will be required to enter this country.”  No mention is made of the other panic – that of the corporate bosses in the professional market who impose a series of norms, study programs, exams, etc. in order to gain entry.  They’re already trying to figure out how to rescind the privileges granted up until now in this sector, in order to provoke Cuban emigration.

Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the international 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.

Carromero’s deathtrap

Ángel Carromero: How the Spanish media are covering the legal impunity of a homicidal driver

José Manzaneda

Translated by Manuel Talens/Edited by Machetera – (español)

Imagine a man who had his driver license revoked after 46 traffic tickets, 6 of them for high-velocity speeding. Imagine that he then caused the death of two people as a result of driving at excessive speed in a construction zone. [1] The Spanish Criminal code defines this action as “reckless driving resulting in death” and imposes a sentence of several years in prison. [2] No one would believe that such a reckless driver could have TV news and leading newspapers at his beck and call, demanding his release without being countered in any way.

However, if this person is a) a youth leader of the Spanish Popular Party (PP), and b) the crime was committed on a Cuban road and c) the victims were two Cuban political cronies of the European Popular Party, in other words, two Cuban “dissidents,” everything changes.

I’m talking, of course, about Ángel Carromero, sentenced to four years of imprisonment in Cuba for “homicide as a result of reckless driving,” according to Cuban criminal terminology. [3] After only five months in prison in Cuba and through the application in record time of a bilateral agreement between Cuba and Spain regarding criminal penalties, he is now supposedly serving the rest of his sentence in a Spanish prison.

The Spanish mainstream media assume – without the slightest questioning of the remarkably clear legal impunity it implies – that Ángel Carromero will shortly be released to house arrest[4] and also that before long the Spanish Government will pardon him [5].

Popular Party leaders have monopolized the media regarding the case, presenting it as a “diplomatic success” by the current government. [6] In contrast, let’s remember that there are 2,440 Spaniards imprisoned in other countries – many of them due to crimes of lesser importance than Carromero’s – who have been waiting years for any kind of help from Spanish diplomacy. [7]

During the negotiations between the governments of Cuba and Spain, the Spanish rightwing leaders were necessarily prudent in their public statements. However, once Carromero arrived in Spain, Esperanza Aguirre, President of the Popular Party for Madrid, opened the spigot of insults and threats against the Cuban government [8].

Accusations from Aguirre, who even described the prison conditions in Cuba for her party colleague as “torture,” stand in stark contrast with statements from other sources. [9] José María Viñals, an attorney from the Spanish Lupicinio legal firm who coordinated Carromero’s defense with Cuban lawyers said that the defendant “did not complain of his treatment (in prison)” and that “Cuban lawyers and I [...] were able to work independently.” [10] Several weeks prior, Tomás Rodríguez Pantoja, General Consul of Spain in Cuba, described the trial in the Cuban city of Bayamo as “correct,” “clean” and “procedurally flawless.” [11]

In an article by Aguirre, published in the right wing Madrid newspaper ABC – where she demonstrated her lack of knowledge of Cuban history by confusing the final year of the war against Spain (1898) with the formal independence of the country (1902) – she summoned all the hatred she had managed to restrain over the past several months and described the Cuban Revolution as a “sinister and abject dictatorship.” [12]

She also publicly insisted on an “international investigation” to clarify the circumstances of the accident in Cuba. [13] Such an absurd proposal of legal intervention in a sovereign country – patent proof that colonialism has not disappeared from the minds of certain Spanish politicians – was supported by other rightwing ultra-nationalist parties in the country, such as the Union of Progress and Democracy (UPyD). [14]

Let’s recall that the family of the late Oswaldo Payá is pushing the idea of an “international investigation.” Far from blaming Carromero, Payá’s relatives still maintain that the cause of the accident was the onslaught of an unmarked Cuban government car [15]. This theory has been denied by both Carromero [16] and Aron Modig, the Swedish politician who was also in the vehicle at the time of the accident. [17] Of course this conspiracy plot feeds the yellow press at various websites, who insist that the Spanish government paid the Cubans a “ransom” of millions of Euros in exchange for the young politician’s freedom. [18]

Other Popular Party leaders have joined this media disinformation campaign. Íñigo Henríquez de Luna – a Popular Party spokesman at the Madrid autonomous government – stated: “The fact that Ángel Carromero was working against the regime in Cuba was used as an aggravating factor for a wrongful conviction.” [19] But the reality is just the opposite: Cuban prosecutors only filed reckless driving charges against the Spaniard. [20] Had he been accused of both giving cash and organizational support tasks to the Cuban “dissidents” – as some sources claim – Cuban anti-foreign interference laws could have been applied to him, and his sentence would have been much higher without the possibility of applying a repatriation agreement. [21] This is how the Spanish media continue giving shelter and propaganda space to those involved in a scandalous case of legal impunity and diplomatic privilege, providing further evidence of the political and moral decadence of the Spanish regime.

Manuel Talens and Machetera are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.  This translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translators are cited.

(1) http://www.tercerainformacion.es/spip.php?article45452

(2) http://www.decuetoabogados.com/la-conduccion-imprudente-sera-considerada-homicidio/

(3) http://www.que.es/ultimas-noticias/internacionales/201208031246-angel-carromero-tenia-puntos-carne-cont.html

(4) http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/2013-01-04/carromero-obtendra-el-tercer-grado-la-semana-que-viene-1276478341/

(5) http://www.abc.es/internacional/20121231/abci-carromero-salir-prision-201212302204.html

(6) http://noticias.terra.es/mundo/casado-pp-la-vuelta-de-carromero-se-debe-a-un-exito-diplomatico,39ae4e5c5b1eb310VgnCLD2000000ec6eb0aRCRD.html

(7) http://elpais.com/elpais/2013/01/01/opinion/1357065627_156234.html

(8) http://segoviaudaz.es/politiqueo/28621/noticias–%C3%81ngel-Carromero–Segovia–Esperanza-Aguirre–informacion–noticias–PP-Madrileno–NNGG

(9) http://www.diarioinformacion.com/nacional/2013/01/01/aguirre-dice-carromero-paso-tortura-cuba/1329733.html

(10) http://www.abc.es/espana/20121229/abci-abogado-carromero-entrevista-201212291233.html

(11) http://www.abc.es/20121006/internacional/abci-proceso-carromero-201210060453.html

(12) http://www.abc.es/espana/20121231/abci-cuba-libre-201212310010.html

(13) http://www.rtve.es/noticias/20130101/aguirre-pide-investigacion-internacional-sobre-muerte-paya-tras-visitar-carromero/594460.shtml

(14) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agYYDhZexv4

(15) http://www.cubainformacion.tv/index.php/lecciones-de-manipulacion/44727-muerte-de-disidenteacubano-oswaldo-paya-iinventar-un-asesinato-para-tapar-la-responsabilidad-penal-de-un-politico-espanol

(16) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBOphUw5RM8

(17) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E8St9LSnUxg

(18) http://www.zoomnews.es/actualidad/espana/retorno-carromero-cuesta-tres-millones-dolares-y-promesa-que-no-se-pronunciara-acc

(19) http://www.libertaddigital.com/espana/politica/2013-01-02/el-pp-de-madrid-cree-que-carromero-nunca-hubiera-sido-condenado-en-espana-1276478236/

(20) http://www.diariodecuba.com/cuba/14647-abogado-de-carromero-el-juicio-fue-justo-segun-las-garantias-del-derecho-cubano

(21) http://www.nuevatribuna.es/articulo/espana/angel-carromero-pp-fue-a-cuba-para-entregar-dinero-al-disidente-oswaldo-paya/20120730212445078998.html

Héctor Pesquera, Puerto Rico’s new Police Chief

Héctor Pesquera, Official Mafioso Hitman Against the Cuban Five, is Chief of Police for Puerto Rico - español

Jean-Guy Allard

Translation: Machetera

Puerto Rico’s governor, Luis Fortuño, has officially named Héctor Pesquera, the former head of the FBI in Miami and the mastermind of a conspiracy that led to the arrest of five Cubans who’d infiltrated terrorist groups in Florida, as the new Superintendent of the Puerto Rican police.

Puerto Rico is facing its most serious wave of crime, violence and corruption in many years.

Pesquera arrived in San Juan, Puerto Rico, on a flight from Fort Lauderdale, and was immediately escorted by FBI agents to the Federal Building, his “alma mater,” at Chardón Street in Hato Rey, where the federal agency is headquartered.

It was at the request of the Mafioso Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart that Héctor Pesquera directed, organized and carried out the arrest of the Cuban Five, who had been sent to Florida from Cuba in order to fight the terrorist campaigns being waged against the island from that city.  The five were transformed into spies through a huge media show.

Pesquera ordered the mistreatment, solitary confinement, and rigged trial of the five Cuban patriots who remain kidnapped in US territory.

This policeman with multiple connections to Cuban American terrorist fauna, is of Puerto Rican origin, the black sheep of a family with deeply held nationalist convictions.

This former counter-intelligence officer was the head of the FBI in Puerto Rico, from where he arranged the liberation of the Miami terrorists involved in the case of the La Esperanza yacht, one of whom was “Pepe” Hernández, the current head of the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF).  The men were arrested for their connections with the plot to assassinate the Cuban leader, Fidel Castro, at Isla Margarita, Venezuela.

Pesquera was the director of the FBI’s Miami division until December of 2003, and later became a port and airport security consultant to the Broward County Sheriff’s Office (BSO).  His immediate supervisor at the BSO, Ken Jenne, was later investigated for corruption.

Coincidentally, Pesquera was still at this post when Luis Posada Carriles illegally entered US territory on the Santrina yacht, without the least difficulty.

Pesquera was also the same SAC (Special Agent in Charge) for the FBI in Miami who, for months supposedly had no inkling of the presence, only a few miles away from his office, of 14 of the 19 Al-Qaeda terrorists who were preparing the September 11 attacks…while instead, he pursued, arrested and organized the political trial and sentencing for the Cuban Five who’d infiltrated the Miami extremist groups he so generously tolerated.

On June 23, 2001, Héctor Pesquera’s men arrested José Guevara, a former Venezuelan intelligence agent, in downtown Miami.  Known as an anti-Chávez activist, Guevara then tried, along with his cousin “Otoniel” Guevara, to collect millions of dollars by blackmailing the former head of Peruvian intelligence, Vladimir Montesinos, who was a fugitive from Peruvian justice at the time.

Instead of arresting him for extortion, Pesquera arranged for Guevara to be set free, and participated in the $5 million dollar reward claim by the Peruvian government, which was ultimately denied, for Montesinos’ capture.

In another episode of this police drama, José Guevara appeared in Miami with $600,000, which the masterminds behind the murder of the Venezuelan state prosecutor Danilo Anderson paid to execute the terrorist attack against Anderson in Caracas.

Pesquera was denounced for having participated in a meeting in Panamá, along with the current fugitive Patricia Poleo and other conspirators, where Anderson’s murder was planned.

Another telling detail is that Pesquera’s son, Ed Pesquera, was the person who destroyed Posada Carriles’ FBI file when the international terrorist’s trial was approaching.

Upon being nominated to his new post in Puerto Rico, Pesquera expressed that in order to fight crime, one must go to the root of the problem.

“It’s with an enormous sense of commitment that I accept this challenge,” he said.

The news of Pesquera’s nomination by Puerto Rico’s governor appeared as soon as March 26 at a Miami website, where it was reported: “The corruption on the Enchanted Island is so great that the Justice Department asked Miami-Dade County to lend it Pesquera, so that for an entire year, the peace and tranquility of that small island might be restored.”

Jean-Guy Allard is a Canadian journalist who worked as editor and reporter for Le Journal de Montréal and Le Journal de Québec from 1971 to 2000.  He retired to Cuba, and now writes for Granma.  He has written several books, including one on Robert Ménard and Reporters without Borders, and one on Luis Posada Carriles.  He lives in Havana and is an expert on the Miami mafia.  Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.  This article and translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

The lesson at the Salpêtrière (1887), by Pierre-André Brouillet (1857 - 1914)

PR as Valium - español, traducido por Manuel Talens, de Tlaxcala

Machetera

Saltpêtrière is a legendary Parisian hospital.  Built in the 17th century, it was known as the cradle of neurosciences for having hosted great teaching doctors such as Charcot, Babinski and Freud.  In the image above, a famous painting by Pierre-André Brouillet, the French doctor Jean-Martin Charcot is portrayed explaining how to diagnose hysteria in a female patient whose name has gone down in the annals of medical history: Blanche Wittman.

The scene is unmistakably sexist: a roomful of men deciding how to treat a woman for a condition whose very etymology reveals its sexism.  Simply by virtue of the fact that she is a woman, she is at the mercy of their decisions. A victim.  The two nuns waiting to catch Blanche as she collapses are mere voiceless spectators.  The men in this image know everything, the women, nothing.

A century and a quarter later, the story behind this painting suggests nothing so much as the case of Judy Gross, the wife of the USAID contractor imprisoned in Cuba. Paternalism remains very much alive, and both The New York Times and Washington Post confirm this through their participation in the inane media campaign to pressure Pope Benedict XVI to counsel Cuba to exchange Rene González for Alan Gross.  Counseling Cuba, as though it were an unruly child, not a sovereign country, is offensive enough.  But it’s nothing new.  The counsel that Judy Gross is receiving on the other hand, is another matter.  Instead of being treated as an active subject, capable of taking her future into her own hands, Judy’s campaign to bring her husband home is being managed and reported by people who have their own, very different priorities.

Paul Berger’s revelation in The Jewish Daily Forward, that the Burson-Marsteller public relations firm is behind this silly PR campaign, was an unexpected development.  For one thing, I wonder, if Berger had not broken the story, would The Washington Post ever have admitted it?

A New York Times editorial followed by a Washington Post feature story promoting a papal solution are not things that appear by accident.  At first, I’d imagined it was the State Department’s doing, but naturally that kind of lobbying would have been unseemly. So this is how it really went: Hillary Clinton handed the talking points to her good friend Don Baer, who is not only the Vice-Chair of Burson-Marsteller, but was also Bill Clinton’s speechwriter. Baer got the sign-off from Mark Penn (Burson-Marsteller’s CEO and chief strategist on Hillary’s blundering 2008 campaign) and voilà, the machinery at both newspapers (and a few others) sprang to life, encouraging a González-Gross trade facilitated by the pope.

González is the first of the Cuban Five to have been released from prison after serving the maximum sentence for failure to register as a foreign agent – not, as the Post erroneously reported, for “spying.”  There’s a difference.  But we can dissect the Post piece another day.

González is currently on probation in Florida, while ten Russians who were caught two years ago as unregistered foreign agents are already home again in Russia, having been swiftly deported without facing trial.  The same thing cost González more than thirteen years of his life.  Obviously being caught as an unregistered foreign agent in Miami means something totally different from being caught for the same thing in New Jersey.  Especially if you’re Cuban.

Alan Gross, on the other hand, is the US citizen who is barely two years into his fifteen-year sentence in Cuban prison, for working to set up a clandestine internet network there, in violation of Cuban law. It wasn’t a “humanitarian” project, no matter how hard Burson-Marsteller insists.  That was the cover.  Cuban Jews already had internet access.

Offering a virtually free man in exchange for an imprisoned one works pretty well as a stalling tactic, evidently, but it’s not a negotiating strategy.  As the long-time Cuba observer Walter Lippmann correctly points out, “Israel traded a thousand Palestinians for one Israeli soldier.  Washington traded ten Russians caught here for four Russians caught there spying for the United States.  Why can’t Washington trade five Cubans for one US citizen?”  No reason, I imagine, except for the fact that Hillary Clinton has been calling the shots.

Berger reported that Judy Gross’s criticism of Obama and US policy toward Cuba was part of a new approach that “coincides” with Burson-Marsteller’s involvement.  Perhaps in timing only.  I’m quite sure that the talking points Don Baer handed her did not include that. Even if it were part of some bizarre contrarian strategy, how far could such criticism go when Baer is channeling Clinton, who still works for Obama, until she quits to run against Jeb in 2016?

I have no inside information but I’m willing to bet that Judy’s well-founded criticism of Obama was a case of the client escaping the Burson-Marsteller corral and speaking her mind. Well, it happens.

Oddly enough, I think it reveals a tiny point of light at the end of the tunnel.  Clinton, Penn, Baer, and Burson-Marsteller are producing a miserable script for the Gross family: as tragic victims and wrongly persecuted Jewish do-gooders dependent on a miracle from a Catholic pope.  This campaign is nothing more than a way of stalling for time, blowing smoke up the Gross’s backside until Obama’s election is out of the way.  To the extent that Judy Gross becomes impatient with the official script, and lets her real frustration show, she’s one step nearer the exit.  The pope as her last hope?  Really?  I certainly hope not.  There are other options.

Playing nice and waiting for Obama and Clinton to run out the clock for their own electoral desires should not be one of them, however. Media pressure on the US Government combined with some adept social media work and clever alliances, on the other hand, could actually accomplish something, but it almost goes without saying that any PR firm taking dictation from Hillary Clinton has no incentive to provide this.

Alan and Judy Gross

In fact, as long as Burson-Marsteller is running the show, the two sides will continue to talk past one another.  Closing the gap that separates Alan Gross’s friends and family from the friends and family, indeed, the millions in the international community, who want to see the same for the Cuban Five is one way – possibly the only way – to move closer to a solution.  And as it happens, an opportunity is approaching.

With miraculous timing, the International Committee for the Freedom of the Cuban 5 has scheduled several days of activities in Washington in a few weeks (April 17-21), complete with an all-star list of guests.  It would be tragic if at least a few people from the Gross camp didn’t escape their Burson-Marsteller minders to see what that’s all about.

Stephen Kimber is one of the stars on the agenda.  Kimber kindly provided me with an advance copy of his soon-to-be published book, “What Lies Across the Water” and it’s magnificent – meticulously researched, honest and impartial.  For anyone who wants to understand exactly what the Cuban Five were doing in Miami, and the subsequent tragedy of their unjust convictions and incarceration, it is the definitive source.  Not to mention, a compelling read.  I wish it had been published ten years ago.  If there’s one book the Grosses and those who truly care about finding a solution for their dilemma need to read, it’s this one.

And…Cindy Sheehan is coming!  What a gift!  Honestly, if Judy Gross doesn’t go just to talk to Cindy, who wrote the book on how to pressure a president, I’ll have to conclude that Burson-Marsteller is holding her hostage to prevent it.

Finally, there’ll be a picket/rally in front of the White House.  Let me just suggest that if the Gross camp were to take the opportunity to join with the Cuban Five camp at this rally, it would be a normal PR executive’s dream come true.  The press would find it irresistible.  It would be a sign of real movement, and it sells itself.  Naturally, for all those reasons, the Clinton-Baer-Penn-Burson-Marsteller crew will say no.

All the more reason for Judy Gross to toss the Blanche Wittman role on the rubbish heap, and do it.

Machetera and Manuel Talens are members of Tlaxcala, the international network of translators for linguistic diversity.  This article and translation may be reprinted as long as the content remains unaltered, and the source, author, and translator are cited.

Machetera

I suppose the Latin American term for an apples and oranges comparison is peras y manzanas.  [Pears and apples.]  Somehow it doesn’t have quite the same ring.  In Spain, the expressions are funnier.  No hay que confundir el culo con las témporas. [No need to confuse the ass with the temporal bones].  No confundir churras con merinas.   [Don't confuse the sheep that produces itchy wool with the sheep that makes merino].

But at the moment, thinking of Rene González and Alan Gross, I prefer the Spanish no mezclar la velocidad con el tocino [don't mix up speed and bacon], because it’s an expression that highlights the absurd, and nothing is more absurd than the comparisons that are being marketed by the mainstream U.S. press on behalf of the State Department about these two men.

Take for example, the recent story by the Miami Herald‘s Jay Weaver.  Upon learning of Judge Lenard’s decision to allow Rene González a two week respite from his probation, to visit his dying brother in Cuba, Weaver picked up the phone and performed what passes for journalism these days: punching the button that speed dials Maggie Khuly and asking for her opinion.

Khuly, for those who don’t know, is the brother of one of the men who – of their own free will – followed the blowhard José Basulto in donated Cessnas to test the limits of restricted Cuban airspace one time too many, on February 24, 1996.  After ignoring verbal and physical warnings, two of the planes (tellingly, not Basulto’s which had long since slithered away) were shot down, one of which contained Khuly’s brother, and Khuly has been baying for blood ever since.  Preferably Fidel Castro’s, but in his absence, and only for the time being, she’s accepted a proxy: five Cubans who had nothing whatsoever to do with the incident, as US Government prosecutors confessed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals in Atlanta.  So who cares what Maggie Khuly thinks?  The opinion of the average woman on the street might be more relevant.

Not only is González, unlike Gross, a free man after serving a ridiculous 13 year sentence while (in contravention of all international human rights accords) the US denied his wife a visa to visit him  - it’s important to remember what González was actually convicted for.

He may have been the most hated of the Five – in Miami anyway – cracking the inner sanctum of the fundraising scheme known as Brothers to the Rescue, flying with Basulto, who knows, maybe even at some point with Khuly’s brother, but those are not indictable offenses.  The only thing they could ultimately pin on Rene was the failure to register as an agent of a foreign government – the same thing that landed Anna Chapman on the cover of Russian Maxim.  That and being unrepentant.  Despite the fact that unrepentance is also not a crime,  there are still many ways to punish it, and Judge Lenard did her best to comply.  Starting with an absurdly long sentence, and a probation that defies logic.  Obama’s attorneys argued recently that González should not be allowed to see his dying brother, because Cuban intelligence might seize the opportunity to give him secret instructions to bring back to Miami when he returns to serve the rest of his probation before he finally leaves the US for good.  Well?  Deport him now then!  Save us all!

But we can’t deport him, because he’s a US citizen by birth if not culture and rules are rules and anyway then we could no longer pretend that he and Gross, the man who solicited a half million dollar USAID contract (via DAI) to go and install the same kind of BGANs in Cuba that were no doubt useful in the humanitarian project known as Libya, are sort of the same.  Because they both have close family members with cancer, you know.  But the similarity begins and ends there.  If you convict a person for failing to register as a foreign agent but you can’t show how his actions actually damaged the country he was operating in AS a foreign agent, then you’ve essentially caught someone on a technicality.  Taking away 13+ years of a person’s life for a technicality is unconscionable and irreparable. Unlike González, Gross was convicted on quite a bit more than a technicality.

But that’s the problem with the US and Cuba.  It’s always the same problem.  Blind to our own defects, we see ourselves as giants.  Cuba, like so many others, is seen as a toy country, with toy leaders, a toy language, toy people, toy laws.  They can’t be serious!  Even after it’s revealed that Gross himself actively solicited and designed the illegal subversive work he would carry out in Cuba, the State Department continues to peddle the line that he was somehow duped, “a trusting fool,” a “humanitarian.”

And so now we’re asked to believe that the two plus years of Gross’s confinement, complete with conjugal visits from his wife, are somehow comparable to 13 years stolen from a man who was prevented from seeing his wife at all…for a technicality?  How many conjugal visits has Gerardo Hernández enjoyed since 2000?  Fernando González?  Zero.  Not allowed in the US federal prison system.  These men and their wives had not only their present stolen from them, but their future as well.  Given their ages it’s increasingly likely that even if they are released through a presidential pardon, it’ll be too late for them to have children.  Unconscionable.  Irreparable.

Law & Media 101

Now that I’ve explained why it is a real, and offensive, manipulation to compare the cases of González and Gross, I will say this: Judy Gross still holds unique, if unrealized power.  She has a forceful and sympathetic media at her disposal; something the Cuban Five and their families have never had.  She could, if she understood how to exercise her power, stop the damage still being done to these five men and their families and simultaneously put an end to her personal nightmare.  But not until she gets a better attorney, and not as long as she follows Hillary Clinton’s script.

The vigils outside the Cuban Interests Section in Washington?  Amateur hour.  But that seems to have been recognized.  Now it’s time to move away from the script that focuses on one man, in this case, González, who is already virtually free, as the only possible trade for Gross, who comparatively speaking has served no time at all.  In fact, could everyone please stop insulting our intelligence?  Every Cuban I’ve ever met can do basic math.  So can the pope.

I can imagine…it must be terrifying, thinking the State Department is your only hope, and if you step away from the script, what then?  Well, there’s no need to re-invent the wheel. For one thing, there’s the resolution from the  U.N. Working Group on Arbitrary Detentions, which said that the sentence for all of the Cuban Five – Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González, Gerardo Hernández, Ramon Labañino and Rene González – is arbitrary and in violation of international law.  Not just Rene.  All of them. 

Ask the State Department why that resolution is immaterial? Insist that they’ve got the math wrong – the correct multiple is five – why not?  And when they say you can’t say that, you can’t do that, call Cindy Sheehan, another person who was ignored by a president, to his everlasting regret.

Or keep going on about speed and bacon.  Your choice.

The Cuban Five and the Tricks Ahead - español

By Edmundo García

Translation: Machetera

I’d like to begin this article by making something perfectly clear: If the Government of Cuba agrees to allow Alan Gross to travel to the United States, for whatever period of time or reason, I believe that not even the bones of the anti-terrorist fighter Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, who is currently serving a double life sentence plus fifteen years, will ever see the sun of Cuba again.  That’s what I think, and now I’ll explain.

On February 27, the news circulated in the Cuban and international press that Phil Horowitz, the attorney for the anti-terrorist fighter Rene González Sehwerert, had presented an emergency motion to the court, requesting permission for his client, currently serving parole in Miami, to return to Cuba for two weeks to visit his brother Roberto González Sehwerert, who is seriously ill.

On March 12, the prosecution acknowledged the humanitarian character of the request, but opposed it, arguing that it posed a security risk for the FBI.  On March 15, more than two weeks after Rene’s attorney’s petition was made public, the media also publicized a statement from Peter Kahn, the attorney for Alan Gross, regarding a similar request that he had sent to the Cuban government via the Cuban Interests Section in Washington, asking that Gross be allowed to travel for two weeks to the United States in order to visit his 89 year old mother and daughter, both with health problems.

One does not need to be a psychic to figure out that Kahn is forcing an equivalent comparison between Rene’s request and that of Alan Gross.  Nor does one need to be a magician to conclude that his statement is designed to affect Rene’s request, and simultaneously counteract the growing international sympathy for his cause.  It would seem that rather than actually succeeding with his petition for his client, what Gross’s attorney really wants is to negate the prior petition made on behalf of the Cuban hero.

The thing to keep in mind first and foremost is that Rene is a free man.  And that he is serving parole far away from his family for two particular reasons:

1. The determining factor, which is that Rene González was born in the United States, in Chicago.  This is why he must serve probation in the United States.  The same situation would apply for Antonio Guerrero Rodríguez, who was born in Miami, but not for Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, Fernando González Llort, or Ramón Labañino Salazar, all born in Cuba, and all of whom would be deported upon leaving prison.
2. The other particular reason is that Rene’s case, like that of the other Cuban heroes being held prisoner, is inarguably political.  If this case were not politicized, Rene’s humanitarian visit would depend simply upon an interview between his Probation Officer and Judge Joan Lenard, to determine how his behavior has been since he left prison.  Behavior that as we all know has been exemplary; and for which reason Judge Lenard would surely approve the request.

If anyone doubts the politicization of this case, one need look no farther than the recent statements made by Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, when she became aware of the request submitted by Rene’s attorney.  The Republican legislator and Chairwoman of the House Foreign Affairs Committee said, with great disgust, “nowhere, no way, no how.”  She even criticized the Justice Department for so much as leaving the door open by admitting that the law contemplates certain conditions under which a request such as Rene’s might be granted.

This poorly designed scheme, this unacceptable trick of comparing Gross’s condition with Rene’s parole situation is not sudden; it belongs to an agenda that began before he even left prison last October 7.  A number of facts convince me that it was the basis for the rejected proposal put forth by Bill Richardson, the former governor of New Mexico, during his last trip to Havana.

I’d like to conclude by putting on the table the truths that define the situation we are facing: Rene is a free man who has completed his prison sentence.  Alan Gross is a prisoner who recently began to serve his own.  In order for a comparison between the two cases to be possible, Gross would have had to have completed his prison sentence in Cuba and remain on parole there as Rene remains in the United States.  In that case, yes.  But as it stands, clearly, the two situations are not the same.  Another equivalent example might be if one of the other Cuban Five still in prison were allowed to travel to Cuba for two weeks in exchange for similar permission being granted to Gross.

It ought to be remembered that Gerardo Hernández Nordelo’s mother passed away while he was in prison and it did not occur to him to ask for permission to attend her funeral.  Just as it would not have occurred to Rene to ask for permission to travel to Cuba if he were still in prison and not on parole.

The exchange of prisoners and a corresponding gesture for gesture is not a new chapter in the history of the tense relations between Cuba and the United States.  It was done in President Carter’s time, when he asked Cuba to free prisoners and Fidel Castro asked for the freedom of certain Puerto Rican political prisoners – the “Macheteros,” – one of whom was Lolita Lebrón.  At the highest level, in the most discreet manner, and without a huge media fuss, these requests were accomplished.  It was known that President Carter faced strong opposition from Republican politicians over the exchange, but at the end of the day, reason prevailed and Fidel’s formula of gesture for gesture opened the door.

This part of history ought to be told to Alan Gross, to his wife Judy Gross, and to the rest of their families and attorneys so that they might be aware that a solution is possible.  They might even try asking Cuba for permission for Gross’s ailing mother and daughter to visit him there, as his wife Judy has repeatedly done; even though Olga Salanueva and Adriana Pérez have never been granted U.S. visas to visit their husbands Rene González and Gerardo Hernández Nordelo.

Senators Patrick Leahy and Richard Shelby, Reverend Michael Kinnamon, Rabbi Reb David, political strategist Donna Brazile, former Congressional Representative Jane Harman, and others have also visited Gross.  And Cuba has not asked for any sort of reciprocity in return for these visits; for example, it has not demanded that Cuban officials like Ricardo Alarcón, President of Cuba’s National Assembly, or Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, or even Ambassador Jorge Bolaños be allowed to visit the Cuban Five; they have only been visited by consuls as regulations permit.

I’m sure that if Rene is granted permission to travel to Cuba for two weeks, he will keep his word and return to the United States in the time and manner indicated.  I know this because I know his principles.  And also because he is conscious that his behavior will influence the destiny of his brothers who remain in prison.

I don’t want to end this article without mentioning that these impressions became ideas, and later, these ideas became written words, thanks to the trust given me by the Cuban hero Rene González himself, when he told me last night over the phone that he agreed with this perspective as I’d shared it with him.

Edmundo García is an independent journalist in the United States of America.  He directs the radio program “La Tarde se Mueve” [Afternoon Moves] in Miami.  Machetera is a member of Tlaxcala, the international 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.

“There are no accidents.” – Sigmund Freud

As one might have expected, Bloomberg and Reuters dutifully shaded their reports on the recent visit to Cuba of Brazil’s President Dilma Rousseff with mentions of the Yoani Sánchez Twitter campaign to pressure Rousseff to intercede on Sánchez’s behalf and persuade the Cuban government to grant her an exit visa to attend a propaganda event in Brazil.

That’s not so surprising.  Sánchez is an egomaniac, for sure, insisting that anyone should care in the first place, when her compatriots Olga Salanueva and Adriana Pérez O’Connor have been denied entry visas by the United States for more than a decade to visit their husbands (Rene González Sehwerert and Gerardo Hernández Nordelo, two of the Cuban Five) unjustly imprisoned in the U.S.  - but if all she has to do is tweet and the press come running, judging the tweet as equal in value to Rousseff’s criticisms of the U.S. gulag at Guantánamo, well, that’s not really her fault – it’s just part of a marketing plan that counts on press complicity.

The interesting thing about this particular tweet however, was the way that the English language press went above and beyond simple translation and repetition, entering the realm of treacherous pure invention.  It’s hard to tell where the invention originated though, since both Bloomberg and Reuters used the same “mistranslation” – nearly word for word.

 Matthew Bristow and Cris Valerio, reporting for Bloomberg, wrote it this way:

The 36-year-old Sanchez, a critic of Castro’s government on a blog called Generation Y, referred to Rousseff’s persecution by Brazil’s 1964-1985 dictatorship in her appeal for a visa to attend a screening in Salvador of a documentary she appears in. Sanchez has been blocked from traveling abroad for the past four years.

“I saw a photo of young Dilma, sitting on a bench blindfolded as men accused her,” Sanchez wrote Jan. 24 on Twitter. “I feel that way right now.”

Jeff Franks, for Reuters, wrote:

Last week, Sanchez wrote on Twitter that she had seen a photograph of “young Dilma, sitting on a bench blindfolded as men accused her. I feel that way now.”

A compelling image, for sure.  A young blindfolded woman, harassed by barking men.  Compelling, except for the fact that such a photo doesn’t actually exist.

The exact words from Sánchez’s tweet were:

#cuba Vi foto de @Dilmabr joven sentada en banquillo de los acusados y juzgada por hombres con la cara tapada. Yo me siento asi mismo ahora

An accurate translation might have been:

“I saw a photo of the young Dilma seated in the dock for the accused and being judged by men who were covering their faces.  That’s how I feel right now.”

Specifically, the mistranslation repeated by Bloomberg and Reuters interpreted the Spanish verb tapar, which means to cover, as vendar, which means to blindfold.  It’s hardly an innocent error given the circumstances of a military trial.  But the altered meaning is even worse in English, given that it’s not the accusing judges who are described as “covering their faces,” but Dilma Rousseff who is portrayed as “blindfolded.”

Not to mention Sánchez’s weak grammar in the original Spanish which begs for correction.  Even the Spanish language press couldn’t resist retouching the tweet.  Here’s how Argentina’s La Nacion fixed it:

“Vi la foto de Dilma sentada en el banco de los acusados y siendo juzgada por hombres que se tapan la cara. Yo me siento así ahora”

(Still well under 140 characters in case anyone thinks the original bad grammar was due to Twitter restrictions.)

And here is the photo.  No blindfolded Dilma.  Two men in military uniforms shielding their faces from the camera with their hands.

Thanks to Wikileaks, we’ve known for some time that Sánchez’s “interview” with Barack Obama was actually produced by the U.S. Interests Section in Havana, not by Sánchez.  How is it that a Cuban blogger can count on such teamwork – a superpower’s diplomatic staff at her disposal and a press that edits and refines her tweets?

So who really dug into the archives for the Rousseff photo and prompted the conflation of Cuba’s immigration office and Brazil’s military dictatorship, through a translation designed to sharpen that conflation and render Sánchez’s plight even more poignant and tragic?  Marketing has always recognized the ancient law of contiguity as an essential concept: as human beings we have the tendency to associate ideas or images with the ideas or images that immediately precede them, and therefore the martyrdom evoked by the characterization of a blindfolded Dilma Rousseff harassed by vociferous Brazilian military men is not accidental, but a deliberate selection to create the effect for the reader that Yoani Sánchez is the new martyr for our time.  Keep in mind that most readers will accept at face value the translation proffered by the media and will not bother to look up the photo.

Who’s behind it all?  Bets, anyone?

Marc Frank, writing for Reuters, reports today that the Paris Club is looking to re-open negotiations with Cuba regarding its foreign debt, and mentions Cuba’s outstanding debt to Russia of 20 billion Soviet rubles as a stumbling block.

In 2001, when the Economist wrote about Cuba’s Soviet ruble debt, it pegged the value of that 20 billion debt at $690 million USD, while pointing out that in 1991, 20 billion rubles equaled $11.8 billion.  If you check the Russian ruble -> USD conversion rate today, you’ll find that a 20 billion Russian ruble debt is currently worth $662 million.  What will it be worth next year?  What was it worth in 1997?

According to this GWU hosted website, a TV set cost 1,200,000 rubles in Russia in 1997.  Simple math tells us that if this is true, in 1997, Cuba’s entire 20 billion Soviet ruble debt could have been satisfied with some 16,666 TV sets.  But then in 1998, with three zeros knocked off the new rubles, a new TV set cost only 1,200 rubles.  So Cuba, if it had paid in TV sets in 1998, would have needed to supply 16,666,666 of them to get free.

My point, and I imagine the point of Cuba’s central bankers is this: how and when do you decide what a vanished currency is really worth?  It’s not meant as a diversionary negotiating tactic – it’s a real question.  Some stories, including the previously mentioned Economist article suggest that “Cuban officials…say the country they borrowed from no longer exists, and that any debt should be offset against damage to the island’s economy caused by Russia’s failure to honour Soviet export contracts to Cuba.”

Perhaps.  It seems like a valid point.  But I’m guessing the real obstacle is the Soviet ruble valuation.  Frank writes that fully two thirds of the debt the Paris Club wants to discuss is wrapped up in the Soviet ruble question, a debt “that Russia now claims but Cuba does not recognise.”  But who does recognize a Soviet ruble?  An Argentinean austral? A Confederate dollar?

This highlights another, more serious problem with Frank’s story.

The Paris Club reported that Cuba owed its members $30.5 billion (19.0 billion pounds) at the close of 2010, but more than $20 billion of the debt was in old transferable Soviet rubles that Russia now claims but Cuba does not recognise.

Note how we’ve now moved from 20 billion unquantifiable Soviet rubles, to $20 billion DOLLARS in a mere keystroke.  To my knowledge, no-one has ever suggested that the 20 billion Soviet rubles should be pegged 1:1 to the US dollar.

Cuban “Ladies in White” Suspect Recently Deceased Leader of Embezzling $20,000

Jean-Guy Allard
Translation: Machetera

Rumors in Havana circulate at lightning speed.  Sources close to the “Ladies in White” [Damas de Blanco] reveal that upon taking charge of the mini-group and reviewing its finances, Berta Soler had the disagreeable surprise of learning that some $20,000 was missing from the organization which is openly funded by the United States.

The “Ladies” founder, Laura Pollán, died on October 14 at the Calixto Garcia Hospital, at the age of 63, victim of cardiac arrest “aggravated by diabetes, hypertension and dengue.”

The discovery of the group’s missing funds came about in a meeting where the 48 year old Soler, who’d acted as second in command until Pollán’s death, was confirmed as the new leader.  The rivalry between the two women who competed for favors from the U.S. diplomatic post in Havana (known as the U.S. Interests Section – USIS) was well known.

In addition to their confirmation of Soler as leader, the twenty odd women who make up the “Ladies in White” confirmed their foreign representatives, Yolanda Huerga, in the U.S., and Blanca Reyes Castañon, in Spain.

The “Ladies in White” are known outside Cuba for the demonstrations they hold two or three times a week near the Church of Santa Rita, in Havana’s Miramar neighborhood, and for holding gladiolas while they march down Fifth Avenue in the same neighborhood.

Each participant earns $30 at each march.  The bosses have a separate budget whose distribution is frequently the subject of internal disputes.

FINANCING MADE IN USA

Berta Soler, a microbiology technician who lives in the Alamar neighborhood just east of Havana, left her job at a Havana hospital in 2009 in order to dedicate herself full-time to the better paid work of Cuban government opponent.

The organization is miniscule according to its membership roster, but important for the scale of funding it receives from the U.S. government, through intermediaries.

One of the “Ladies” sponsors, with financing from Washington expressly for this purpose, is a U.S. Army veteran, Orlando Gutiérrez Boronat, who runs the Cuban Democratic Directorate [Directorio Democrático Cubano], an NGO that receives substantial USAID funding to carry out subversive activities in Cuba.  Gutiérrez Boronat is also a former member of the terrorist Organzation for the Liberation of Cuba [Organización para la Liberación de Cuba.]

Like the terrorist Luis Posada Carriles, Gutiérrez Boronat is connected with the right-wing extremists from the ARENA party in El Salvador.

The money earmarked for the “Ladies” and other members of the opposition network fabricated by the USIS was “frozen” for a number of months in Washington in reaction to the various fraud scandals uncovered by the General Accounting Office (GAO), in which very well-known individuals from the Cuban-American mafia were involved.

A WEAK AND DIVIDED OPPOSITION

The former head of the SINA, Jonathan Farrar, became accidentally famous through a Wikileaks document dated April 15, 2009, in which he commented that the so-called dissidence in Cuba was “divided, dominated by individuals who don’t work well as a team” and people “who are more interested in asking for money than carrying out programs.”  He was quickly recalled by the State Department when these statements, which infuriated the anti-Castro mafia in Miami, came out in the press.

On May 19, 2008, Cuban authorities publicly denounced the dissident groups like the “Ladies in White” and others, who have received large sums of money from the confessed Cuban-American terrorist Santiago Álvarez.  The denunciation was made at a press conference where emails, videos and even monetary receipts were presented.

The proof presented was directly connected to the head of the USIS at the time, Michael Parmly, who performed as a mule for the money transfers.  The now deceased Laura Pollán was directly connected to the receipt of $2,400 dollars.