![[freedomtowernight_edited.jpg]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEi-x7_mwi5EYyZJxpzNqsvkYATDseYTHIovP09YKrIctspB17DY_5s2AeackCCaZqX14NV-rcs5S81-anUoEkQcrbMqc9hATVpw0uU3hH1tyIbe0iq0Jfe5iTwGlJaoODZXAOt_Kg/s1600/freedomtowernight_edited.jpg)
Not So Fast
Rick confidently cranks out a post today which claims to be a serious blow to "hard-liners" support for travel and economic restrictions between the U.S. and Cuba. How in the world are we nasty "hard-liners" going to stomach this news, let alone admit to it on the World Wide Web?
Sounds convincing, if you go by the BBC article that Rick used as basis for the post. Ahhh, but there's a catch (surprise, surprise), my faithful readers. The smoking gun letter apparently written by the Ladies in White to Barack Obama, and paraphrased by the BBC, was actually written by one of its leaders, Miriam Leiva and her husband Oscar Espinosa Chepe. Their letter was independent of another letter that the group sent to Barack Obama which carried a somewhat subtle but important difference in tone and focus.
Here's a link to an EFE article published yesterday by El Nuevo Herald and translated by yours truly. See for yourself (emphasis mine):
As I've said before, it wouldn't break my heart to see the travel restrictions relaxed. If we want to send more money to our relatives in Cuba, great. But when Cubans abroad send remittances to Cuba in record numbers which Cubans on the island are using to buy up all those DVD players, when Cuban-Americans circumvent the restrictions and visit their relatives in Cuba, all without effecting significant and lasting change in Cuba, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Ms. Leiva when she thinks that eliminating the restrictions will kick-start democracy in Cuba.
Sounds convincing, if you go by the BBC article that Rick used as basis for the post. Ahhh, but there's a catch (surprise, surprise), my faithful readers. The smoking gun letter apparently written by the Ladies in White to Barack Obama, and paraphrased by the BBC, was actually written by one of its leaders, Miriam Leiva and her husband Oscar Espinosa Chepe. Their letter was independent of another letter that the group sent to Barack Obama which carried a somewhat subtle but important difference in tone and focus.
Here's a link to an EFE article published yesterday by El Nuevo Herald and translated by yours truly. See for yourself (emphasis mine):
The Ladies in White, relatives of the 75 dissidents imprisoned in 2003 in Cuba, sent a letter to Democrat presidential candidate Barack Obama yesterday, in which they affirm that their relatives are neither mercenaries nor agents of Washington, as the island's government claims.
"They are neither mercenaries nor agents of the United States, a claim Cuban leaders brandish as a way to utilize the confrontation between our two countries as a pretext to justify the problems which exist here, oppress the people, implant fear and confuse international public opinion", said the message.
"We have high hopes that you can contribute to the immediate and unconditional release of the 55 that remain in horrible health conditions, and that the 9 under house arrest (conditional release) due to illness are not sent back to prison", adds the letter which was released in Havana yesterday.
The Ladies in White aspire "that the more than 200 Cuban pacifist political prisoners be released".
They explain to Obama that since July 31, 2006, when (f)idel (c)astro delegated his charge to his brother (r)aul after half a century in power, "a situation exists in the island not seen in 50 years".
"We consider that if the authorities propose real changes, they should begin with the release of our relatives whom have committed no crimes", assure the Ladies in White.
"Their aspirations - the message adds - are to promote the development and well-being of the Cuban people in a peaceful and democratic environment and with respect for human rights."
They recall that (r)aul (c)astro - who assumed the presidency this past February 24 - "has recognized the existence of serious problems in all areas of society, has predicted structural and conceptual changes, still without specifying, and has called on people to express their opinions and criticisms."
According to the Ladies in White, many of their relatives "warned about these and other problems independently".
One of the group's founders, Miriam Leiva, and her husband, economist Oscar Espinosa Chepe, sentenced in 2003 and released for health reasons, sent another letter to Barack Obama in which they applaud some of his initiatives with respect to Cuba.Those of us who follow these things know that Miriam Leiva has always been an outspoken critic of U.S. policy towards Cuba. That's fine, and I applaud and admire her bravery in her efforts to confront the Cuban regime. Therefore, the letter she and her husband sent to Obama should come as no surprise whatsoever. The letter written by the Ladies in White as a whole essentially sends the same exact message that us disgusting and revolting hard-liners are always screaming: Release the political prisoners! Reinstate Human Rights! In other words, their focus isn't on U.S. policy, but on the regime in Cuba, where it ought to be.
Among them, they cite the elimination of the travel restrictions for Cuban-Americans to visit the island and for sending economic assistance to friends and relatives.
"We aspire that the restrictions are progressively lifted. It would be a positive result which would promote the end of this confrontation..., which has been very useful for the most conservative sectors of the Cuban government in order to justify the national disaster and oppress the people", Espinosa and Leiva added.
"We are confident that your election as president in November will initiate an era of realistic politics towards Cuba", state Leiva and Espinosa, and they add that these changes in U.S. policy - "would be an important aid to a transition to democracy".
As I've said before, it wouldn't break my heart to see the travel restrictions relaxed. If we want to send more money to our relatives in Cuba, great. But when Cubans abroad send remittances to Cuba in record numbers which Cubans on the island are using to buy up all those DVD players, when Cuban-Americans circumvent the restrictions and visit their relatives in Cuba, all without effecting significant and lasting change in Cuba, I'm afraid I'll have to disagree with Ms. Leiva when she thinks that eliminating the restrictions will kick-start democracy in Cuba.
posted by Robert at 10:46 AM
30 Comments:
Obama gets 2 letters from the Ladies in White. One was written (not "apparently"...it was, unless you're implying that the BBC made it up) by the group's founder and the other was written by the group's rank and file.
The letter from the rank and file does not even address the travel restrictions, according to the translation you provided.
The letter from the founder does and supports Obama's positions.
Which is what I wrote in the post. Where's the "catch?" Where's the "surprise?" It's two separate letters from the same group dealing with two separate topics.
The rank and file does not say that it opposes Obama's positions.
The Ladies in White are with Obama on his Cuba policy. A leading dissident group in Cuba wants the travel policy changed and supports Obama.
I think that's significant and in direct opposition to the hardliner position, is it not?
And, more importantly, as the title of my post says, when do you think babalu is going to post it?
.
Hey Rick Babalu will post it whenever one of Babalu's contributors feels like posting it. Isn't it clear to you yet that we don't answer to you?
Rick,
The BBC article (and you) specifically mention a "Ladies in White" article in which it quotes parts of Miriam Leiva's letter, not the one written by the group. The implication by both you and the BBC that Leiva's letter was representative of the entire group is not substantiated.
However, for the sake of argument, let's say Leiva speaks for everyone in the group. So? Does it mean that advocating against lifting restrictions is wrong, or is it anothe way of seeing things? You decide. I would guess that some in the group agree with her and some don't, but when it comes to supporting the release of the political prisoners, we're all on the same side.
BBC may have made a mistake, but in your case I think it's your eagerness to divide the community and show how stupid and "alone" the hard-liners are. That's my 2 cents.
Jeebus, Robert, she's the group's founder, for God's sake. I think it's a safe bet she speaks for the group or at least the group's official position.
Robert, if a group of oppressed people say to their supposed supporters....
"Folks, we need help. We need _______, "
...and their supporters essentially say,
"No you don't, you don't need ________, and we're not going to support you in getting that, in fact, we're going to work to make sure you don't get ________."
Are the supporters really "supporting?" Are they looking out for the best interests of the oppressed? Are they, in fact, hurting them?
You're a smart guy, Robert. You figure it out.
You're all on the same side when it comes to releasing political prisoners from jail. Well, hallelujah. I guess I should be impressed?
.
Rick,
If the rest of the Ladies really felt the same way and wanted to deliver a statement to Obama, wouldn't they have done it together, instead of with two separate letters with different wording and emphasis? Maybe they do agree wholeheartedly with Leiva, but I think the truth is a bit more complicated than that.
You're not dumb either, Rick. Think about it. Either way, it's really secondary to what their goal is, which is the release of their relatives. I will also add this: Would Obama, with only a marginally different policy than any of the previous U.S. presidents of the past 50 years, really be any different?
Libertad. Change in Cuba. We've heard it all before, Mr. Obama.
Well, hallelujah. I guess I should be impressed?.
No. I really don't care at this point.
Would Obama, with only a marginally different policy than any of the previous U.S. presidents of the past 50 years, really be any different?
For something that doesn't matter a whole lot, you guys are sure spending a lot of keystrokes on it.
Whatever, Robert. You guys will look at things the way you want to look at them and spin them and twist them and interpret them the way you want.
In the end, an important dissident group in Cuba is supporting Obama and his promise to drop the restrictions. As is CANF.
And as the hardliners stand on the sidelines and the new leaders of Cuban policy take over and help the dissidents and the majority of the CA community get what they want, hardliners have a choice to make. Do they want to play or do they want to stand on the sidelines as the rest of the team takes care of moving the ball down the field.
Take your pick.
......
Hey, henri....yeah, I realize you guys march to the beat of a different drummer but if you noticed, the post wasn't asking or prodding you or the boyz to post anything. It was noting that you WOULDN'T post anything.
And so far, it's been dead on.
.
No Rick, if you re-read you stupid comment you ask the question: "when do you think babalu is going to post it?"
And I answered your question by saying that it will be posted whenever any one of us has the urge to post it.
You see that's how blogs work. Each blogger posts what he wants to post. What Rick wants us to post has no bearing whatsoever on what we post. I know that frustrates you. I know you wish everyone was as much as a liberal douchebag as you but it's a free country (still) and so you can eat my shorts if you don't like it.
As for the original post by Robert, he nailed it. Chepe has been against the embargo ever since he was still in favor of the Revolution. That he and his wife continue to be against it is not news.
Go back to your restaurant reviews or something you might actually know about like stealing time from the taxpayers.
Henry: We'll try this this one more time.
My post points out that this is the kind of news that is never reported by hardliners because it runs contradictory to their "message."
I wouldn't expect you guys to post it. That's the whole friggin' point of my post. My question in the comments section was a reiteration of that point. Comprende? Probably not. It's like algebra, I know.
And FYI, I don't post restaurant reviews. You and your fellow boyz can continue to waltz out and play the "employment card" for as long as you want...it means nothing and it just shows that you gots nothing.
.
My post points out that this is the kind of news that is never reported by hardliners because it runs contradictory to their "message."
I think my post and the subsequent discussion proves the above wrong. Not to mention that your post only tells part of the story.
Correction to previous comment:
Not to mention that your post intentionally only tells part of the story.
Robert: I "intentionally" updated my post and synopsized yours and included a link in order to tell the "other part" of the story.
Are you making nonsensical comments today or am I just having a particularly hard time dealing with your usual obtuse writing?
.
Are you making nonsensical comments today or am I just having a particularly hard time dealing with your usual obtuse writing?
OK, then can you explain what you're implying with the remark "After all, isn't it the dissidents who are living the nightmare while hardliners decide whether it's hot dogs or steak for the big barbecue tomorrow"?
After you explain, then you can ponder who's really making non-sensical and off-base commentary.
I'd be happy to explain this remark, Robert, although after I explain it I think you'll see that it's not as insidious as you apparently believe.
Kindly refer back to the paragraph prior to the one you cited. Here, I'll help:
You would think that if dissidents are saying that dropping travel restrictions is really what's needed, Cuban-American hardliners would listen to them rather than dismiss their voices as nothing but expected rhetoric from Bush critics.
The comment that you cited refers to hardliners living merry lives here in the good 'ole United States and deciding what is best for Cubans, such as the Ladies in White, who suffer and trudge through every miserable day that the Castro regime dishes out.
The dissidents and, most likely, most Cubans, want the travel restrictions dropped, Robert. Who are hardliners to tell them they are wrong? Who are hardliners to work actively to counter those wishes?
I can't believe that a gringo from east Pembroke Pines has to spoon feed a Cuban-American in Miami-Dade County this bit of reason.
But apparently I do.
.
Identity politics is so cool. You have to be an X to hold a legitimate opinion about X -- but only if you hold the right opinion. Otherwise you are a "hardliner" or "Uncle Tom" or someone nasty like that. But if you are a non-X and hold the right opinion, then you get to speak for every X! What a deal.
Alternately, we might accept that different people, even people who are all basically on the same side of an issue, tend to hold different opinions. We might even decide that it's possible to evaluate opinions on the merits rather than on who holds them, and to discuss policy issues without turning everything into a question of taking sides. Nah.
Wow, I can't believe Jonathan wrote something sensible and that makes perfect sense. Now all he has to do is convince his blog partner to evangelize himself and his comrades at babalu, where identity politics mean "not shitting on your own" whatever that means, and not being a "cubano arrepentido", a "dialogero" or an outright pinko.
Well said Jonathan. I mean it.
I wasn't referring to Robert.
Heh.
.
Read the post again, guys. Read it carefully, without considering the source and based on whatever merits it may have, as Jonathan stated.
Read where it states that there can be disagreement on issues such as the travel restrictions, yet still be part of the same overall goal. But Rick mocked that assessment, because, well, it doesn't fit his neat and nice picture of nasty intolerant hardline conservative Cuban-American republicans. It's one thing to live in Kendall and not do squat about Cubans, and quite another to live in Kendall and be active in trying to help people in a country you've never been to.
Frankly, I'm tired of these bullshit arguments.
Robert, give me a break. Starving somebody's family in order to pursue a failed policy goes beyond gentlemany disagreement. So does accusing those who send money and visit of being Castro collaborationists or generalizing them as "mulas" or sex tourists.
The hardliners threw the first punches in the family and remittances fight and now they got a brawl in their hands.
The hardliners threw the first punches in the family and remittances fight and now they got a brawl in their hands.
Please Alex, enough with the histrionics. If you want to call this a brawl, then its the one the locals Dems (lead by Joe Garcia) started because it makes them appear to be the agents of "change" and "libertad". The reality of their proposed policies is "more of the same" in a different package with a pretty bow on top. Open the box, and it's politics as usual. Lots of bun, but no beef.
Besides, who's starving whom here?
If you want to continue discussing the merits of travel and remittances, fine. But we're just spinning our wheels here. I realize that you and Rick use my blog as a sort of sounding board to directly confront and debate someone from the other side since Babalu bans you from commenting. That's OK. You're welcome to comment here, even if it's the same old, same old warmed over a million times.
It's symbolism, not histrionics. Histrionics... jeje, for that look to babalu and the profanity laced rant Val just posted. I'm sure it was spurred by this.
Starving? If I don't send money, my family starves. I know this because is my family and because when I was living in Cuba, with three Cuban-peso salaries coming into my household, we starved.
If you don't believe that, then you believe the regime provides them with enough. Or you don't care if they starve because you have nobody there anymore. In which case, fuck you. Which one is it?
The confrontation started when Bush shamelessly pandered to CAs in 2004. You know this very well. What hardliners didn't expect was how much popular sentiment there would be against the measures. Look at Lincoln Diaz Balart's face when he was confronted by potesters for the first time in his own turf.
Now they coldly calculate how many recent arrivals vote, etc; which shows it's not about the effect the measures have in Cuba, but about the electoral effect in Miami.
Well, I'm saying they are in for a big surprise. We'll see in November.
Oh, and babalu didn't ban me. I don't comment on babalu on principle.
I'm not looking to convince anybody. I believe you are so beyond convincing as I'm sure you think I am.
You're welcome to comment here, even if it's the same old, same old warmed over a million times.
Coming from the folks who have been warming it over, again and again for the last 40 years, that's downright hospitable of you, buckaroo.
.
Alex,
Starving? If I don't send money, my family starves. I know this because is my family and because when I was living in Cuba, with three Cuban-peso salaries coming into my household, we starved.
If you don't believe that, then you believe the regime provides them with enough. Or you don't care if they starve because you have nobody there anymore. In which case, fuck you. Which one is it?
I believe you, Alex. The point of my question is not that there's no suffering and starvation in Cuba, it's to point out that it's the regime's fault for paying 3 pesos a month salaries, not mine or Bush's. Through the pittance that we're now allowed to send to Cuba, Cubans are able to get by and purchase DVDs. So much for us starving them, huh?
Unfortunately, by insinuating that I am insensitive and cruel to Cubans because of my views, you do the same thing some hardliners do to those who support lifting restrictions. Instead of honest debate like you claim to desire, it's "to hell" with those that don't think like you.
Rick: I have to say that your "buckaroo" comment is charming in an old-school kind of way. I like it.
Yes, yes, it's the regime. Except that if you restrict remittances, then it's the regime AND you.
You guys are always making the same kind of faulty arguments: you see a few people buying DVDs, you say 'look at how much money they have"; you see a few old perverts going for sex torism, you talk about thousands; you see a few tourists doing what tourists do, you point to this as proof that tourists are not freedom fighters. Woop de do, what a discovery. Nevermind that it's not what they do but what happens inside the collective Cuban psyche when that contact occurs.
I'm not insinuating anything. I'm telling you isolating families IS cruel and insensitive. It doesn't matter if Castro did it first, we don't act like Castro and we don't punish people to get back at Castro. I don't like giving Castro money anymore than you do. I haven't visited Cuba in 17 years precisely because I won't pay a thousand dollars for a passport and a charter flight. But those are my particular boundaries. I don't impose them on anybody nor do I like when people try to impose theirs on me and my family.
This sounds eerily familiar to the stinker of an editorial in the Palm Beach Post yesterday.
If we're punishing Cubans so much, then why do they want to come here, to the land of the punishers? Something about that doesn't make sense. I think...actually...I know Cubans know better than to blame the U.S. for what goes on in Cuba. Much better than you or I.
You don't know what a sophism is, do you Robert?
No, I don't. Excuse my ignorance. I'm a conservative (a Cuban-American one at that.) Remember? ;)
Ignorance can be excused. Resistance to learning, well...
Well, then teach me, oh omniscient one. Otherwise, you can have your opinion and I can have mine.
Deal?
When have I ever told you you can't have your opinion? You can have it. I'd fight for your right to have it. Even if it's all sophistry.
Post a Comment
<< Home