NOTES on CANCELING THE EMBARGO IN CUBA
Hugo Adan Mon 22,
Dec-2014
The debate on cancelling the embargo was well summarized in the US in
the article Should the United States Maintain Its Embargo
against Cuba? http://cuba-embargo.procon.org/
Here some notes departing from such
arguments.
1-The United States should end the Cuba embargo because
in 50-year this policy has failed to achieve its main goals. The intention
of Kennedy with the embargo (1962) was “to reduce the
threat posed by the alignment of Cuba with the communist powers”, reads
the 1st line of that article.
1-1 Such communist’s powers does
not exist anymore (in
1989 the USSR collapsed). When communism exist, the intention of
forcing Cuba to adopt the American democracy, did not work either. It was not communist
who kill Kennedy, the mentor of the embargo, Kennedy was killed by the American
democracy, exactly the democracy that we wanted to sell to Cuba. The fact is
that American democracy is the most corrupted in the world: here one single oligarchy owns the bipartisan
system, finance its candidates and prohibit a third option. We can sell this D
elsewhere but not inside the Americas. For Cuban is better the direct democracy
they have (workers and communities select their own representatives without the
interference from corrupted parties). We
can accuse Cuba of being manipulated by Castro’s dictator, and they will laugh,
mock and say “look who is talking”.
2- The embargo cannot be defended based on arguments of
liberty and democracy as it was
pretended in 1996 by senators Helmes & Burton (the most rightist of the neocons). In their Act of
1996, they add to “democracy” the argument of “liberty” in reference to the
prisoners Cuba had jailed. Castro released the prisoners and sent them to the
US (los marielitos). Can we use the Liberty argument
right now?, after the infamous scandal of torturing prisoners .. that would
be pathetic, to say the less.
2.1 The fact is that nowadays economic business
and neoliberal geopolitics don’t go hand
on hand in the head of US policy makers. We are losing business with
this blockage, suggested Obama. We failed in the tactic of isolating Cuba, (as
we are failing in Russia too, he forgot to say). Does this means that business should
be subordinated to politics, as it was in the time of colonialism? I don’t
think so. In business does not matter the political color or the colors of the
flag and it won’t if global recession continue
escalating, all nations will be affected - directly or indirectly- by the
coming global recession that is being starting nowadays.
2.2 The context in which the topic embargo in Cuba emerges is
related to the chances of war between Nato (US-UE) vs Russia because of the
issue Ukraine. What will happen with the economic terrorism imposed
by the US & European members of NATO against Russia? Is one of today key
question. I would say that Economic terrorism is run top-bottom nowadays, from supra-state organizations (including IMF)
all connected to a mafia of bankers with base in the US, London and Israel. If
IMF do not promote a new international currency, soon or later the bottom up econ
terrorism will emerge (any action creates similar reaction) and the trend will
be in reverse and not with States as main actors, but with either mafias or run by rebels organizing webs articulated
at international level. I would say that any sanction imposed to Cuba -if they
accept the Embassy en la Habana- directed toward regimen change will be
responded the same way, if fair diplomacy fails.
3- The failure of embargo is in fact the victory of
globalization, wrong lead by corrupted neoliberal institutions. At the same time, it is the failure of the neo-liberal US State leaders who believe in the eternal
supremacy of dollars based on corrupted speculation of derivatives and hedge
funds. Soon the fiat currency that lacks backing from gold will be abandoned.
So far, the dollar is losing the currency war, more and more trade is done with
other currencies and banks worldwide are diversifying deposits.
4. Possible outcome from current contradictions. If
in the 1930 the bankers accepted the need
of empowering the working classes not only as consumers but
also as creators of national prosperity, this time the owners of capital will
not only accept to limit speculation (as FDR wanted in the US), this time
Bankers to exist have to either dissolve crook big corporation, or be dissolved
by small and medium productive capital. There won’t be a deal of co-existence between
big crook bankers and middle plus small productive capital. Productive
investment –not big speculator
capitalists –were the ones that created the economic exuberance that
lasted 40 years in the US. The coming trend
is not in favor of Fed crook bankers, State companies will prevail and their alliance
with the working classes won’t be in
favor of a deal with the crook bankers of the FED, instead will be in favor of
destroying big conglomerates and set a new fresh start. If this comes via State
separatism from the FED or via revolution, is hard to predict.
4.1 What is easy to predict is that the failure of economic
terrorism (blockages, sanctions, and other acts of piracy) will lead in the
near future to the rebellion of the productive capital in alliance with the working
classes, the ones that are now the most affected by econ sanctions.
For the productive capitalist to reproduce itself, they need to destroy the big
conglomerates, the cancer of the capitalist system. The big-monopolistic
corporation have their days counted. Then politics will accommodate themselves
to the new reality in process.
4.2 If we call democracy & freedom to such process or national
democratic revolution –it doesn’t matter the name- the content of the change will
be totally different –will be the reverse- to the system that we
have now. The merge of capitalism and socialism is one of the options (State
inversion + Productive capital inversion). If the mix happens as it is now some
Nordic Stated, the current “freedom and democracy” will be part of the museum
of shameful things we did in the past, during colonial and neocolonial time.
4-3 To argue “democracy”
in current times -to pursue regimen change as hidden agenda- via installing US Embassies
will be considered part of the old fascistic
dogma. Fascistic because the nature of embargos & economic
sanctions was not to hit the “ dictator”, but instead to hit the civilian
population in the hope that they will abandon their leaders. Cuba is showing to
the world that this fascist strategy did
not work and it won’t work in Russia either. Such strategy force people to reject the sanctions and support their
“dictator” leaders. Putin is now a clear example of the failure of such
strategy. The union between State-leader and masses in Russia didn’t need
fascism as in Germany, it was a reaction to fascism coming from the US.
4.4 If the embargo didn’t work before (if 52 years of
sanctions had not toppled the Castros regime) there is not reason to believe
that it will work when neoliberal colonialism is collapsing worldwide. The new roads of globalization will not digest the economic
terrorism of embargos, sanctions and blockages. There won’t be reason for them to exist in the
near future.
-----
-----
RELATED ARTICLES
Longstanding US Cuba Policy: Regime Change http://www.globalresearch.ca/longstanding-us-cuba-policy-regime-change/5420751
-----
Cuba and the contradictions of Barack Obama http://www.globalresearch.ca/cuba-and-the-contradictions-of-barack-obama/13725
====
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario