Posted June 19, 2017

     President Trump announced on June 16 that his administration’s new Cuba policy will prohibit direct transactions with entities related to the Cuban military, intelligence, or security services.  A number of commentators in the United States have written that this restriction could place serious restrictions on future U.S. commerce with Cuba, because the military, intelligence and security sector is a significant part of the economy.  For example, an editorial by the New York Times asserted that “American companies and citizens will be barred from doing business with firms controlled by the Cuban military or its intelligence services, thus denying Americans access to critical parts of the Cuban economy, including much of the tourism sector.”  Making a similar argument, Ben Rhodes, who played a central role in the Obama opening with respect to Cuba, writes that “large swaths of the Cuban economy [are] controlled by the military.”

      Such commentaries are simply mistaken, as a matter of fact.  The Revolutionary Armed Forces and the Ministry of the Interior, which directs intelligence and security, are a part of the Cuban government; but they in no sense control the government or the economy, nor are enterprises controlled by them an important sector of the economy. There are some enterprises owned and managed by the armed forces in such areas as the tourist and retail sectors, but there are many state enterprises in these and other sectors that are not tied to the military. After reading the commentaries, I talked with members of the Cuban Communist Party, and they all confirmed my previous understanding that the great majority of Cuban state companies in a variety of economic sectors, including tourism, communications, transportation, energy and mining are not tied to the military or to the Ministry of the Interior.  Their sense was that it would not be difficult for U.S. companies to find trading and/or investment partners that would not be included in the new prohibitions.

      Another specific changed announced by the Trump administration is the elimination of the individual people-to-people authorization for travel to Cuba.  The people-to-people program had been developed years ago, on the basis of the belief that the people of the United States, interacting with the Cuban people, would influence thinking in such a manner that the people would push for changes in the socialist political-economic system.  Prior to Obama, U.S. travelers in the people-to-people program were required to go through specific agencies, mostly in the Miami area, that had been authorized to conduct the program. These agencies were expected to conduct a full program of activities that involved interchanges with the people, and not with government representatives.  The Obama administration modified the program, permitting U.S. travelers to travel and develop their activities on their own, with the same guidelines, but self-administered.  With Trump’s elimination of the individual people-to-people program, U.S. travelers to Cuba wanting to use the people-to-people program will have to go through authorized agencies in the United States.  No doubt, given that the number of U.S. travelers to Cuba has accelerated rapidly since the Obama opening, these agencies will launch advertising campaigns to attract travelers.  In light of the growing number of direct commercial flights between the United States and Cuba, which the Trump prohibition does not touch, and the expanding number of hotels and rental rooms in Cuba, such expansion of the group people-to-people program is a definite practical possibility.

      The biggest difference between the Trump and Obama programs is rhetoric.  The Obama administration spoke in a respectful tone, but it in fact moved slowly in easing restrictions.  The Trump administration invokes a hostile rhetoric, but it leaves intact the important changes initiated by Obama, and it leaves open the continued possibility of step-by-step improvement in relations between the two countries.  It is possible that Trump’s rhetoric will slow the process of expanding relations, but given the number of forces that are in motion, the process will likely continue to evolve.

     The difference in rhetoric, however, is not insignificant.  It is a difference in projection: the Obama administration anticipated a normalization of relations, without demanding changes from Cuba; whereas the Trump administration insists on changes in the Cuban political-economic system as a condition for easing or eliminating the “embargo.”  We should keep in mind, of course, that for the Unites States of America, normal relations include interference in the affairs of other nations, seeking to ensure access to raw materials and markets, as is evident today with respect to progressive Latin American governments.  Accordingly, Obama, like Trump, wanted to change the Cuban system, because it is a system that is not designed to respond to U.S. interests.  But Obama was trying a different strategy, recognizing that the embargo has not been effective in promoting U.S. interests.  Obama intended to affect changes in Cuba through measures that would expand the growth of small private enterprise, with the expectation that this sector would be a natural ally of U.S. interests in relation to Cuba.

      Cubans overwhelmingly view the Trump June 16 speech as a “show” and as full of comments about Cuba that are entirely inconsistent with Cuban reality.  Some dismiss him as an “idiot;” others, as a “clown.”  A joke is going around that, since there is a shortage of clowns for the Cuban circus, perhaps Trump would be interested.

      But it would be a mistake to dismiss Trump as a clown or a jerk, either in Cuba or in the United States.  In certain respects, the Trump “show” of June 16 was politically shrewd.  It was a move to consolidate his right-wing base by obtaining the support of political actors who not only demand a tougher rhetoric against Cuba but also play a central role in the U.S. aggressive policy toward progressive governments in Latin America, a policy pursued by the Obama administration.  The rhetoric against socialist Cuba is more consistent with U.S. policy toward Latin America as a whole.  Moreover, the Trump policy avoids conflict with those businesses that want to develop commerce in Cuba, by leaving intact new structures and new possibilities for commerce and travel to the island.  At the same time, the hostile rhetoric appeals to an important sector of U.S. public opinion.  Trump presents himself as defending U.S. interests in Cuba, overturning an agreement with Cuba in which the United States gained nothing (other than improvement in its international image).  Trump declares himself to be defending America, unlike the rest of the political establishment. Moreover, his speech recalls the former days of American glory, when the United States stood proud as a defender of democracy in the world, thus invoking an image that distorts international reality but that continues to have much popular appeal, inasmuch as it never has been effectively delegitimated by progressive tendencies in the United States.

      Beyond the issue of U.S. policy toward Cuba, the Trump project as a whole has a certain logic, even though it ensures the continued decline of the United States and constitutes a threat to humanity.  I will discuss further the logic of Trump in a subsequent post.
        
   

Posted June 21, 2017

     As we have seen (“Trump’s speech on Cuba” 6/17/2017), immediately following Donald Trump’s June 16 speech on Cuba, the Revolutionary Government of Cuba issued a declaration.  It affirms that Cuba remains open to negotiations with the United States, on a basis of mutual respect, but that it will not compromise its sovereignty in order to improve relations with the United States.  Any changes in the Cuban political-economic system, regularly occurring as its socialism evolves, are made by Cuba as a sovereign nation, and they never will be made because of conditions established by a foreign power.

     At a press conference on June 19, Bruno Rodríguez, Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations, read a prepared statement.  Rodríguez is a dignified man with a conservative manner, always careful in his choice of words.  However, anger could be discerned as he denounced the June 16 “show,” which he characterized as a grotesque spectacle.  He observed that Trump was surrounded by “old henchmen and thieves of the Batista dictatorship, mercenaries of the Bay of Pigs brigade, and terrorists.”  Among those who were at Trump’s side were: a terrorist detained in California in 1995 with an arsenal of arms, who was involved in an attempt against Fidel Castro; a member of an armed group that infiltrated Cuba in 1974; and a third who committed terrorist acts of piracy against Cuban fisherman between 1972 and 1975.  Rodríguez noted that among those with Trump was the wife of a Batista dictatorship torturer, who had subsequently financed a series of bombings in Cuban tourist facilities in 1997.  “I strongly protest before the government of the United States this . . . offense to the Cuban people, to the world, and to the victims of terrorism everywhere.”   

     Rodríguez also noted that the show included frequent mention of “the father of an out-of-tune violinist who played the U.S. national anthem.”  He pointed out that Trump omitted mention of the fact that Capitan Bonifacio Haza had murdered the Cuban youths Carlos Díaz and Orlando Carvajal in the last days of the Batista dictatorship; and that Haza had participated in the assassinations of the well-known revolutionary organizer and activist Frank País, his comrade in struggle Raúl Pujol, and in a later moment, his younger brother Josué País.  

     Rodríguez maintained that the measures announced by Trump are a backward step in U.S.-Cuban relations.  Further, he expects that they will adversely affect U.S.-Latin American and Caribbean relations, and that they will seriously damage the credibility of U.S. foreign policy. 

     Rodríguez reaffirmed Cuban willingness to dialogue, but on a basis of mutual respect.  “I reiterate the will of Cuba to continue respectful dialogue and cooperation in areas of mutual interest and to negotiate pending matters with the United States, on the basis of equality and absolute respect to our independence and sovereignty.”

     He maintained that Cuban sovereignty must be respected.  “Cuba will not make concessions inherent to its sovereignty and independence; it will not negotiate its principles nor accept conditions, as it never has, never, throughout the history of the Revolution.”  He made reference to the recent discussion among the Cuban people and the Communist Party of Cuba of a new economic and social model. With respect to any such internal discussions, Rodriquez insisted that “any necessary changes in Cuba will be decided in a sovereign manner by the Cuban people, and only the Cuban people, as always has been done.  We do not ask anyone’s opinion, nor do we ask anyone for permission.”

      In the subsequent taking of questions from the press, Rodríguez was asked, by a representative of Prensa Latina, why Cuba continues with its posture of willingness to dialogue, when there is not a counterpart disposed to dialogue.  The Minister responded:

​      The National Secretariat of the Cuban Federation of Workers (CTC for its initials in Spanish) also issued a declaration.  Some 99% of Cuban workers, including professional workers like medical doctors and university professors, are members of CTC, and the workers elect the leaders of CTC at local, provincial and national levels.  CTC is a self-financing non-governmental organization, but it is not anti-governmental, as a result of the fact that the government actively supports the rights of workers in all occupations and professions, including the right to organize.  The elected leaders of Cuban workers declared:

​     At the same time, the Secretariat of the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba has called upon North American writers, artists, academics and friends of Cuban culture to denounce the new policy of Trump as well as the brutal blockade that Cuba has suffered for nearly sixty years.

​        In response to the vandalism and terrorism of the opposition (see “The campaign of violence in Venezuela” 6/20/2017), Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has convoked a Constitutional Assembly.  All sectors of Venezuelan society are convoked, including historic social movements, parliamentary blocs, indigenous associations; labor organizations, students, women, communal councils and councils of workers and farmers.  

     The secret, direct and universal election of delegates to the Constitutional Assembly will be will be held on July 30.  The elected delegates will be sworn and the Assembly will be constituted three days later.  The Assembly will have 545 delegates; 364 territorial delegates elected in voting districts, and 181 sectorial delegates representing eight sectors, including workers (79 delegates), farmers and fishermen (8), students (4), handicapped (5), indigenous peoples (8), pensioners (28), business (5), and communal councils (24).  Each prospective territorial delegate has to present signatures equivalent to three percent of the voters in the voting district in order to be validated as a candidate for the Assembly.  The prospective sectorial delegates must present 1000 signatures in the student and worker sectors, and 500 for the others.

     Hugo Chavez was elected President in 1998 on the basis of his promise to convoke a Constitutional Assembly.  In taking office, Chávez immediately initiated the process, a Constitutional Assembly was held, and a new Constitution was approved by the people in 1999.  However, the Chavist revolution was not entirely satisfied with the new Constitution, and it unsuccessfully attempted to amend it.  Moreover, with eighteen years of further experience, the Chavist Revolution now has a more developed concept of the elements that it sees as necessary for a truly democratic constitution.  Leaders of the Chavist Revolution have stated their intention to propose to the delegates the inclusion of new themes, including: the establishment of the social missions developed by the Chávez government as a constitutional requirement; the diversification of the economic system, reducing its dependency on petroleum; the inclusion of new actors, such as the communal councils, thus strengthening the movement toward popular and participatory democracy; the defense of the sovereignty of the nation, against foreign interventionism; the strengthening of the state in order to facilitate a socialist form of the organization of society; recognition of the multi-ethnic and pluralist character of the country; and the protection of the natural environment.  In addition, they speak of the need to incorporate new elements to protect the Constitution against attacks on the constitutional process and the Constitution itself.

       Chavist leaders stress that the new constitutional process today is different from 1999.  The Constitution of 1999 sought to overthrow the previous Constitution and break with the neocolonial order, whereas the revolution today intends that the newly convoked Constitutional Assembly will further develop the Constitution of 1999, incorporating the more mature understanding that has been accumulated on the basis of eighteen years of experience.

      The convoking of a Constitutional Assembly is a risk, for there is the possibility that delegates of the Right or counterrevolutionary elements could obtain significant representation.  But it also establishes the possibility for the revolutionary process to take decisive steps toward its consolidation.  The latter possibility is favored by the fact that the opposition is divided and lacks a program.  Many of the principal figures of the opposition are not true political leaders; as Maduro has said, the opposition only knows how to convoke the people to kill and burn.  In contrast, the Socialist Party of Venezuela is the largest political party in the nation, and it has a platform and committed militants, who are capable of mobilizing the people to elect delegates.  Other political parties of the Left and progressive social movements also have this capacity.  The opposition is capable of and oriented to disruption, but it is not prepared for effective participation in a Constitutional Assembly.

     There have been impressive and enthusiastic popular demonstrations supporting the new constitutional process, which has the potential to marginalize the violent sectors and discredit the violent and disruptive strategies of the Right, delegitimizing them on the national political scene and in the international arena.  It is an intelligent move by Maduro in the context of a challenging situation, characterized by economic warfare and a campaign of violence by national actors of the Right, with the support of powerful international actors, for the purpose of creating a situation of economic and political destabilization that would function as a prelude and pretext for U.S. military intervention.  

     The international campaign against Venezuela is motivated by the fact that, for the global centers of power, the autonomous road of Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua is a threat to a neocolonial world-system that requires the subordination of supposedly independent nations.  From the vantage point of the global powers, these are dangerous examples, and they cannot be permitted to stand.  History has shown that the survival of national revolutions against the global process of reaction requires intelligence, commitment, determination, and persistence; as well as the solidarity of nations, movements and peoples of the world.

Posted June 28, 2017

     In his June 16 speech in Miami announcing a new Cuba policy, and in the “National Security Presidential Memorandum on Strengthening the Policy of the United States Toward Cuba” issued on the same date, President Donald Trump made a number of comments that distort Cuban reality.  

     Trump described Cuba as ruled by a brutal communist regime that suppresses freedom and human rights, denies democracy and free enterprise, arbitrarily arrests dissidents and peaceful protestors, prosecutes religious practices, does not recognize alternative political parties and does not have elections.  He further maintained that the military forces and intelligence and security services are at the core of the regime.  

     In these commentaries, the President of the United States displayed a stunning ignorance of the nation concerning which he was announcing policy.  In fact, the Cuban Revolution has developed an alternative system of democracy, a system of popular democracy, structurally different from representative democracy (see “The Cuban revolutionary project and its development in historical and global context”).  Cuba developed the alternative system as a result of its adverse experiences with representative democracy during the U.S.-dominated neocolonial republic from 1902 to 1959.  It found that democracy “made in the U.S.A.” was unable to protect the sovereignty of the nation or to respond to the social and economic needs of the great majority.  So after the triumph of the revolution, it worked on developing an alternative system of democracy, which was established in the Constitution of 1976, a decade in which the U.S.A.-Cuba conflict had abated and in which the revolution institutionalized a number of revolutionary practices.  

     The Cuban system of popular democracy is developed on a foundation of secret and direct elections in voting districts of 1000 to 1500 voters, which elect delegates to 169 local assemblies throughout the nation.  The delegates are elected from among two or more candidates who are nominated directly by the citizens in a series of neighborhood assemblies.  The elected delegates to the local assemblies in turn elect the delegates to the fifteen provincial assemblies as well as the deputies to the National Assembly of Popular Power, which then elects the thirty-one members of the Council of State (the executive branch).  The ministries of the armed forces and the interior (security and intelligence) are only two of various ministries in the executive branch, and they are under the jurisdiction of the Council of State and the National Assembly.

     The electoral process, from nomination to election, occurs without the participation of political parties, without political campaigns, and without campaign financing.  All citizens 16 years of age or older are eligible to vote, and the participation rate is in excess of 90%.  All citizens are eligible to be delegates and deputies, regardless of ideology or political party affiliation.  In the nomination process, qualities of the candidates are discussed, rather than issues.  Issues are discussed in ongoing meetings of the people in neighborhoods and places of work and study, separately from the electoral process. People are entirely free to express their views on a variety of subjects, although counterrevolutionary views are so contrary to the prevailing popular consciousness that open expression of them generally leads to a decline in influence among fellow citizens.  And as in any society, no one has the right to engage in violent protest, nor the right to engage in disruptive behavior under the employment of representatives of a foreign power.

      Trump spoke of “dissidents,” but one doubts that he or any of his advisors had previously read an interesting book on the “dissidents,” in spite of the fact that an English translation is available.  The book consists of interviews of Cuban agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary groups in Cuba.  The agents describe the tendencies in the groups toward: using connections with the United States as a basis for improving personal economic situation; very limited influence among the people, who generally view them as U.S. servants; deliberating fabricating false news stories that damage the image of Cuba; and engaging in violent and illegal activities.  The book exposes the weak and decadent character of Cuban political dissidents.

     Trump spoke of the Cuban dissidents in such terms that, from the Cuban perspective, it appeared that he was converting terrorists into heroes. This aspect of the June 16 “show” has provoked the most indignation in Cuba.  Cuban television news has been presenting news stories concerning specific persons who were lauded by Trump, explaining who these people are.  For example, one woman praised by Trump was identified in Cuban news as involved in the “banditry” in the mountains of south-central and western Cuban from 1959 to 1965.   The story of the banditry is little known in the United States, but far from forgotten in Cuba.  The bandits were operating as counterrevolutionary guerrillas, with logistical and financial support from the CIA. But a guerrilla troop cannot function without the support of the locals, and these counterrevolutionary forces did not have popular support.  So they became bandits, and their activities included murdering civilians, including peasants as well as young teachers in the revolutionary literacy program in the mountains.  Cuban scholars maintain that nearly 200 people were killed during the six-year campaign, which was brought to an end by revolutionary militias who tracked down the gangs and disabled them.  The woman embraced by Trump was tried in Cuban courts for her involvement in these activities, and was sentenced to 18 years in prison, serving 14 years before being released.  She subsequently emigrated to the United States, and attained some fame as an “independent journalist” in opposition to the Cuban government. Cuban journalists say that she received payment in excess of fifty thousand dollars for writing articles defaming the five Cuban security agents who had infiltrated counterrevolutionary terrorist groups in Miami. (The five subsequently became internationally renowned political prisoners in the United States before being released by Obama as part of the normalization of relations).  Whereas Trump referred to this “independent journalist” as an ex-political prisoner, Cuban journalists and government officials view her as an ex-terrorist who today receives payment for disseminating false information about her native country.  

     Trump believes that Cuba is not alone in its alleged shortcomings, for he declared that “communism has destroyed every single nation where it has ever been tried.”  But he has revealed no understanding of what communism is, especially in its Third World manifestations. In the Third World, there has emerged during the past 100 years leaders who are intellectually prepared, politically astute, and morally committed; and who constructed syntheses of Marxism-Leninism with national traditions of anti-colonial struggle for national liberation.  As the Third World project of national and social liberation evolved, it arrived to forge a common vision of a more just, democratic and sustainable world, and to formulate the fundamental principles of a more just world-system. Trump knows nothing of this historically evolving social project, and therefore he is not qualified to offer a reasonable view on whatever its shortcomings may or may not be.  But in fact, the Third World project is pointing toward the necessary road, if humanity is to emancipate itself from the dominating global structures that promote conflict, generate extreme inequalities and extreme poverty, and threaten the survival of the human species.

     Although Trump lacks the knowledge to lead in an enlightened form, he possesses a certain political instinct that enables him to touch upon the concerns of the people, who are ill at ease with globalism, post-modernism, and neoliberalism.  I will discuss this logic of Trump in the next post.


References
 
Elizalde, Rosa Miriam and Luis Baez.  2003. “Los Disidentes”: Agentes de la Seguridad Cubana Revelan la Historia Real.  La Habana: Editora Política.

     Since the beginning of April, the extreme Right opposition in Venezuela, with the support of the United States and governments of the Right in Latin America, have organized a campaign of violence. The campaign has included burning of public buildings, looting of commercial establishments, and harassment and attacks of supporters of the Bolivarian Revolution.  In organizing the campaign, the extreme Right has recruited youths, and it has contracted criminal elements. Since the beginning of April, more than sixty people have been killed and more than 1000 have been injured.  While the governments and the press in such countries as Venezuela, Cuba, Bolivia and Nicaragua have exposed and denounced the campaign of violence, the international media, in a selective and distorted manner, portrays the violence as repression by the government of peaceful demonstrators. The goal of the campaign is to create an international image of repression and ungovernability in Venezuela, as a prelude and pretext for U.S. military intervention.  It represents an effort by the Right, unfolding in a systematic way since 2014, to reverse the gains of progressive, Left and socialist movements, which have taken power in a number of nations in the region during the last twenty years.
  
     On May 10, Tareck El Aissami, Executive Vice-President of Venezuela, announced to the press that one of the armed cells has been neutralized and dismantled, and its leaders arrested.  The cell had been detected by the Venezuelan services of intelligence in the city of Caracas, operating under the direction of certain actors of the Venezuelan ultra-Right, including members of the so-called Table of Democratic Unity, the coalition political parties of the opposition. Government security agents had been surveilling the cell, with the authorization of the courts.  The government presented evidence to the press, including surveillance videos, telephone recordings, automatic rifles and grenades.  According to El Aissami, the evidence shows that “it is not a matter of spontaneous and peaceful protests but of armed cells that have been operating in a planned and organized manner, and with logistical support, in order to generate the terrorist violence with which we have lived during these weeks, primarily in Caracas and in the Miranda State, and that has sent dozens of homes in Venezuela into mourning.”  He noted that this particular cell had received training in urban insurrection, and it had contracted criminal bands in Caracas to assault and loot commercial establishments and to generate nighttime criminal violence.  It had been recruiting youths from five states in the country.  It had developed plans to attack a military barracks and an air base, with the purpose of generating an international commotion by giving the impression of a military uprising in the country, he declared.  He appealed to youth who might be inclined to be influenced by leaders of such cells, advising them that such extreme political elements praise you today, but if they were to attain their goals, they would forget you, for they are dedicated not to the nation but to foreign interests.  

     Francisco Ameliach, Governor of Carabobo, views the strategy of the opposition as a psychological war.  It foments economic and political destabilization, seeking to create discontent, with the intention of manipulating the people into blaming the government and turning against it.  As former CIA Director Allen Dulles once explained, it is a matter of manipulating consciousness and usurping the collective imagination.

     Hugo Chávez believed that opposition that uses such strategies are not true leaders, for they are not guided by a sense of morality that includes commitment to the good of the nation.  Accordingly, they are incapable of formulating a programmatic platform for the future of the nation.  They are capable only of disruption and manipulation.  That is why the opposition in Venezuela is not seeking to take power through the formulation of an alternative political program, but is seeking to generate the conditions for a pretext to foreign intervention that would take power through military means, and delegate power to these who are disposed to govern in its interests.  The Venezuelan opposition and their international allies seek to restore power to the elites, bringing to an end the Bolivarian Revolution that took power in defense of the people.

​     In response to the campaign of violence, President Nicalás Maduro has convoked a Constitutional Assembly, which we will discuss in a subsequent post.

Posted June 29, 2017

       As we have seen, Trump describes Cuba in a manner that has no relation to Cuban reality (“Trump’s distortions of Cuban reality” 6/28/2017).  However, Trump’s distorted formulation is fully consistent with the prevailing view of U.S. popular consciousness.  For the most part, the people of the United States believe that Cuba is not a democratic society, that it at least to some degree violates human rights, and that it does not have elections.  

      Trump has formulated a foreign policy guide of “principled realism.”  He maintains that U.S. policy realistically and with common sense ought to promote and defend U.S. interests in the world, but in a form that is rooted in our values and principles.  His new Cuba policy is a perfect example:  he condemns the (supposed) human rights violations of Cuba, in accordance with our democratic values; but realistically recognizing U.S. commercial interests in Cuba, his policy permits the regulated expansion of commerce with Cuba, building upon the opening initiated by Obama.

      His concession to realism and U.S. economic interests is aided by a clever rhetorical maneuver.  He (falsely) presents the Cuban “regime” as dominated by the military forces and security and intelligence services.  This portrayal enables him to take a hard line against the military, security and intelligence sectors, prohibiting any commerce that would involve these sectors; yet to permit commerce that is seen as benefitting the people and their free enterprise activities.  Formulating a policy on this basis permits significant commerce with Cuba, with both the small-scale private sector and the many state-owned enterprises that are not connected to the military. Accordingly, the Trump memorandum of June 16 suggests the expansion of possibilities for sale of U.S. agricultural and medical products as well as the maintenance and expansion of bilateral agreements with respect to science, the environment, and air travel, and cooperation in telecommunications and Internet; with the stipulation that the agreements do not include the participation of Cuban enterprises connected to the military and security services.

     If Congress were to pass a law permitting commerce in certain sectors, such as agricultural exports to Cuba, but specifying that the transactions cannot involve the participation of Cuban enterprises connected to the military, this would be the legal basis for the expansion of commerce with Cuba in a form consistent with Trump’s policy.  Trump could sign the law with great fanfare, noting that it benefits U.S. farmers without benefitting the Cuban military, which supposedly is the core of the Cuban “regime.”  

      Thus, Trump is defending and promoting democracy in Cuba, insisting that Cuba change, but establishing definitions and regulations that in fact permit growing commerce with Cuba, thus satisfying the demands of U.S. companies that want to do business in Cuba. Rejecting the tolerant discourse of Obama with respect to a supposed military dictatorship that denies human rights, the Trump policy nevertheless anticipates expansion of commerce with Cuba, in accordance with the interests of U.S. producers and exporters; and it allows for controlled tourism.  

     The Trump democratic rhetoric has resonance among a certain sector of the people.  Many of our people feel of sense of loss, in that that the nation is not what it once was.  Trump responds by proclaiming, “Let us make America great again.”  And one of the dimensions of our former greatness was our moral position as the leader of the “Free World,” with the economic, political and military capacity to defend democracy in the world.

      Even though the image of American greatness is based on false premises and historical omissions, it is effective political discourse. The leaders and the great majority of the people believed it during the historic moment of American power and glory, and many believe it now, albeit less so.  In the context of the prevailing popular consciousness, drawing upon the image of America defending democracy connects our people to the discourse of our foreparents, who invoked the rhetoric to explain, justify and promote American expansionism and imperialism.

      In the context of U.S. political discourse, it does not matter much that the U.S. blockade of Cuba has been condemned repeatedly and universally.  In the United States, international public opinion scarcely is taken into account.  Indeed, there is a certain sector among the people that maintains that world opinion should not matter to us.  We know what is right, and we have the military strength to ensure that our will prevails.  The people and governments of the world may protest, but they know much less about the meaning of democracy than we do. Let us act in the world with force and will, as we once did.  Consistent with this conception, the Trump policy mandates rejection of the world condemnation of the U.S. embargo of Cuba as a component of the policy itself. 

     Trump also has formulated the concept of regional spheres of influence, where the major powers are responsible for order and stability in their respective regions.  This implies a move toward disengagement from Europe and the Middle East, and a greater involvement in Latin America, which already is evident with respect to Cuba and Venezuela.  In light of the disregard for international opinion and the increase in U.S. military expenditures, the Latin American engagement likely will utilize military interventions and economic sanctions, with these policies justified by claims of violations of human rights as well as connections to drug trafficking and trafficking in persons, with the mass media supporting distorted claims.  With respect to Europe and Asia, if Trump were to take seriously his idea of spheres of influence, he would be focused in the long term on developing commercial relations that intelligently benefit U.S. interests, and less inclined to costly military interventions.

     Trump stands as the voice of American pride and power, not only defending democracy in Cuba and Latin America, but also: promoting an economic nationalism that induces U.S. corporations to invest in production in the United States; supporting American production against the idealism of ecologists; increasing military strength; and protecting borders from an uncontrolled illegal immigration.  He seeks support for this nationalist project with a populist rhetoric that includes the scapegoating of immigrants and Muslims (see “Reflections on Trump” 3/17/2017 in the category Trump).  If the Trump project can maintain itself with the firm support of 25% or 30% of the people, it would have a viable and important presence in U.S. political dynamics. Given the absence of an alternative project that responds to popular anxieties, it could grow in influence.

     To be sure, the Trump project confronts major political obstacles. There are important sectors of the people for whom such a message has little resonance: African-Americans, those oriented to “identity politics,” and the white middle class of the urban Northeast, Midwest and West Coast.  Some popular sectors will remain strongly opposed, offended by Trump’s scapegoating, anti-ecology discourse, and disregard for humanity beyond U.S. borders.  In addition, the project challenges the neoliberal global elite, which favors multicultural discourse and seeking profits anywhere in the world, without concern for the well-being of the nation or its people.  This sector of the elite controls the major newspapers and media of communication, such that its opposition is significant in influencing the people.  

     The Trump project, however, has appeal in the smaller cities and towns in the South, Midwest and Rocky Mountain states.  And in light of the increase in military expenditures, it should have the support of the arms industry and the military-industrial complex.

      The battle is joined between the neo-nationalism and neofascism of Trump and the globalism, multiculturalism, and neoliberalism of Clinton-Bush-Obama.  The people and the elite are in the midst of political-cultural-ideological war.  Neither band has an understanding of the necessary direction in the context of the sustained national and global crises.  The “Left” in the United States ought to propose an alternative national narrative and direction, which thus far it has failed to do.  I will discuss the necessary response to Trump in the next post.

Posted July 5, 2017
 
      There have been criticisms everywhere of Donald Trump’s June 16 speech announcing a hardening of the Cuba embargo, as it is called in the United States.  The criticisms of Trump’s Cuba policy reveal the limited understanding and influence of the so-called Left in the United States, and the narrow perspective and strategy of the opponents of the “embargo.”

      Some have argued that the embargo violates the rights of U.S. citizens to engage in commerce and to travel.  However, we ought to appreciate that the rights to trade and travel are not without limit. Governments reasonably and necessarily regulate them, and they have the authority to restrict them, if there are compelling reasons.  In defense of its embargo, the U.S. government has claimed that the Cuban government is undemocratic and denies human rights.  If this were true, a case reasonably could be made that the U.S. government has the authority to impose restrictions on its citizens with respect to Cuba, as a dimension of a foreign policy promoting democracy in the world.

     Therefore, the legitimacy of the U.S. government’s restrictions of its citizens with respect to Cuba depends upon the validity of its claim that Cuba is not democratic.  Yet many of those who oppose the embargo assume that Cuba has an undemocratic political process, and they do not analyze the U.S. government’s claim to this effect.  They in effect are saying, “It may be that Cuba violates human rights, but our farmers and agricultural enterprises want to sell there, and our citizens want to travel there, so let’s ignore violations of human rights.”  This is a weak and unprincipled argument.  Trump has the moral upper hand when he calls for a return to a Cuba policy that makes clear a commitment to democratic values and for an end to tolerance of violations of human rights.

     Those who oppose the economic and financial blockade of Cuba should challenge the fundamentally false assumption, held by both defenders and opponents of the embargo, that the Cuban political process is undemocratic and that Cuba denies human rights.  Such an argument would go beyond pointing to the excellent and universal systems of health and education in Cuba.  It would explain the Cuban alternative structures of popular democracy, which function without electoral parties and without campaign contributions.  These structures were developed in the 1970s by the revolutionary project as an alternative to representative democracy, which the revolutionary leadership perceived as a form of democracy that benefits those with greater financial resources.  The outstanding health and educational systems are a consequence of popular democracy.  Inasmuch as the elected delegates to the National Assembly of Popular Power are not dependent on the campaign contributions of a corporate class to sustain their political careers, they are free to address the social and economic rights of the people, to the extent that limited resources permit.  Once this is understood, one could not reasonably deny that Cuba has exemplary norms and practices with respect to democracy and human rights; and the deceptions and distortions of the politicians and political intellectuals who created and have maintained the embargo would stand exposed.  

     The embargo should be ended not because it restricts the trade and travel of U.S. citizens, but because it was established and is maintained on false premises.  Presenting such an argument requires knowledge of the Cuban political process and its structures of popular democracy, However, for the most part, the U.S. opponents of the blockade have not informed themselves of the Cuban political process and the historical development of its structures, which would provide them with a potent arm in the battle of ideas.

     Some have argued that the “embargo” has not worked, so we need to use other strategies in undermining the Cuban Revolution.  They ask, “What other strategies could we try?”  They do not ask, “Why has the embargo failed?”  If they were to reflect on the latter question with seriousness and persistence, they eventually would arrive to awareness that the Cuban Revolution is a popular democratic revolution, capable of invoking the people to material sacrifice in defense of their revolution.  

     If they subsequently were to ask, “Was our mistaken policy with respect to Cuba simply a misunderstanding of the particular situation in Cuba, or have we opposed democracy in other nations as well?” Serious and persistent investigation of this question would lead to awareness that U.S. opposition to popular democratic revolutions and governments is the general norm in U.S. foreign policy, even as the United States persistently claims that its actions promote and protect democracy.  If such awareness were combined with commitment to the proposition that U.S. foreign policy ought to be based in democratic values, it would lead to a search for a democratic reformulation of foreign policy, based on the principle of respect for the sovereignty of all nations, rejecting imperialism in its various manifestations.

      Barack Obama was among those who argued that the Cuba embargo is not working, and he sought an alternative strategy for undermining the Cuban Revolution.  The Obama strategy was to promote the expansion of an entrepreneurial middle class, which would ally itself with U.S. economic interests and seek changes in Cuba that would facilitate greater possibilities, with less regulation, of foreign investment in Cuba.  Like his ten predecessors, Obama assumed that Cuban political processes and structures are undemocratic.  And like all U.S. presidents from William McKinley to George W. Bush, Obama pursued imperialist policies with respect to Cuba, Latin America, Asia and Africa, seeking to secure markets for U.S. goods and capital.  The Obama opening was characterized by a turn to a different imperialist strategy, keeping intact the goal of undermining the Cuban popular democratic socialist revolution.  At the same time, the U.S. Left did not seize the moment of the opening with Cuba to ask the necessary relevant questions that would expose and delegitimate the essentially anti-democratic character of U.S. foreign policy.

      Some have argued that the June 16 discourse of Trump is a return to the outdated language of the Cold War.  It is true that Trump’s anti-communist rhetoric seemed like it belonged to an earlier time.  But the Cold War had distinct dimensions.  Insofar as it was a confrontation between hostile and competing empires, the Cold War ended with the collapse of the Soviet Union and the Eastern European socialist bloc.  But the Cold War also had its manifestations in the Third World, and the issues at stake in the Third World did not disappear with the collapse of the Soviet Union.  Although U.S. foreign policy during the second half of the twentieth century was driven by an anti-communist ideology, U.S. opposition to certain Third World governments was not based in reality upon their communist or socialist tendencies, actual or fabricated.  What really was at issue for the United States was the insistence of these Third World governments on their national sovereignty.  They laid claim to the right of all nations to be truly independent, and accordingly, to develop their own policies with respect to domestic forms of property, distribution of land, and regulations concerning foreign investment and international capital flow.  They maintained that they had the right to exercise their sovereignty, without interference by foreign powers. Moreover, they influenced many other Third World governments to join in affirming certain principles that should guide international affairs, such as the rights of all nations and peoples to self-determination and development.  From the vantage point of the United States and the European ex-colonial powers, such pretensions to national sovereignty were an unacceptable threat to the neocolonial world-system, which depends on the subordination of the nations of the world, masked by formal political independence.  The rhetoric of the Cold War was invoked by the neocolonial powers as justifications for interfering in the affairs of nations, but this was an ideological maneuver that functioned to obscure that the issue at stake was the intention of some governments to establish the true sovereignty of their nations.

      The collapse of the Soviet Union placed independent-minded Third World governments at a political disadvantage; and external debt and the neoliberal project placed the Third World in an increasingly disadvantaged position economically.  With the anti-communist rhetoric less effective, the neocolonial powers turned to other ideological frames for justification of their interventionism, including the “War on Drugs” and terrorism, with the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2001 providing the basis for launching the “War on Terrorism.”  During the last two decades, as progressive and socialist governments in Latin America sought an autonomous road to development, the United States has justified its interventionism with any workable pretext, with allegations of violations of human rights and participation in drug trafficking being the most common.  The June 16 anti-communist discourse of Trump with respect to Cuba is fully consistent with the U.S. rhetorical distortions and interventionist policy toward progressive and socialist governments in Latin America today.   Trump’s rhetoric distorts, but it is not outdated

     The opponents of the Cuba embargo have to go beyond “it violates the rights of U.S. citizens,” “it hasn’t worked,” and “Trump uses an outdated rhetoric.”  They should condemn the policy in an integral form, making the case that the failure of the Cuba embargo, like the U.S. defeat in the Vietnam War, is a symptom of a larger problem.  In essence, that problem is the fundamentally undemocratic structures of the world-system, rooted in European conquest and colonial domination of vast regions of the world; and the imperialist policies of the United States, which are designed to preserve world-system structures and to secure a U.S. position of dominance in the neocolonial world-system. The embargo of Cuba has failed because it has been integral to an effort by a global power to preserve undemocratic world structures, standing against a revolution that proclaimed its democratic rights to sovereignty and self-determination.  The people of Cuba, led and formed by revolutionary leadership, understood this, and as a result, they have been willing to persistently sacrifice in defense of their revolution, finding in such persistence a sense of meaning and purpose, as each contributed in a modest way in making the world more democratic.  

      The persistence of the Vietnamese in the face of the barbarous attacks by U.S. military forces led to questioning of U.S. policy in Vietnam, which for many of us led to awareness of the essentially imperialist character of U.S. foreign policy.  Similarly, the persistence of Cuba in the face of the fifty-five year embargo establishes the possibility for popular education with respect to the essentially imperialist and undemocratic character of U.S. foreign policy, if progressive and Leftist activists and intellectuals were to explain it in these terms.  

      The people of the United States feel a sense of loss, for the nation is not what it once was.  Accordingly, they are susceptible to the influences of a Donald Trump, who speaks of making America great again.  He speaks of an America that once again defends democracy in the world, without ambiguity in its moral proclamations.  He wants to expand American military strength, thus investing in the nation’s strongest industry.  He calls upon U.S. corporations to invest in production at home, and he intends to free productive processes in the United States from excessive environmental regulations that result from the claims of idealist ecologists.  He wants to protect the U.S. border from illegal immigrants, who possibly include terrorists and drug dealers.  The Trump discourse recalls the memory of a great power that once was, a nation that sees itself as the most democratic, powerful, and wealthy nation in human history, and that acts in the world with confidence and decisiveness.

      The Left dismisses, but has never effectively debunked, the prevailing American grand narrative.  The Left should be working on a reconstruction of the American grand narrative: explaining the historical and economic reasons for the U.S. ascent and its relative decline; lifting up heroes from the history of popular movements in the United States, connecting the people to visionaries of the past and to historic popular struggles for democracy; and indicating the necessary national direction in the context of the sustained global crisis, in solidarity with the movements and peoples of the Third World.  Trump and his neoliberal opponents should be delegitimated by an informed public discourse that exposes the false premises of both, with respect to Cuba, the meaning of democracy, and the relation of the United States to Latin America and the world.

     The Organization of American States (OAS) was created in 1948, when the United States was at the height of its hegemony, with the intention of establishing a diplomatic structure that would enlist the participation of Latin American governments in U.S. neocolonial domination over them.  Socialist Cuba turned out to be too unified to permit the establishment near the Bay of Pigs of a beachhead provisional government, which the OAS could have recognized.  So in 1962, Latin American governments, with the honorable exception of Mexico, voted to expel Cuba from the OAS.  In 2001, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks of September 11, the United States was able to influence OAS to enact the Inter-American Democratic Charter, which required member nations to have representative democracy.  One suspects that the neocolonial power was thinking here of Cuba, inasmuch as the socialist nation has structures of popular democracy, and not representative democracy.  In 2009, in the context of a new political reality, OAS rescinded the expulsion; but Cuba, both before and after the rescinding, has indicated that it does not intend to return to an organization dominated by U.S. and elite interests.  

      The OAS has recently turned its attention to applying the Democratic Charter to Venezuela.  The fact that Venezuela since 1999 has had highly developed and frequently practiced structures of representative democracy, much praised by international observers, is of no obstacle, inasmuch as a neocolonial power in pursuit of its particular interests scarcely is persuaded by fundamental facts. However, on March 28, 2017, the OAS Secretary General, in spite of U.S. support, failed to attain approval from the member nations for the activation of the Inter-American Democratic Charter against Venezuela (see “ALBA backs Venezuela” 4/21/2017).  Cuba, being no great admirer of the OAS, was quick to respond, and not at all with timidity. Issuing a Declaration on the same day of March 28, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations observed that the OAS confronting Venezuela is the same OAS that has remained silent before violations of human rights in the hemisphere, including: coups d’état; disappearances; arbitrary detentions; the torture and murder of students, journalists and social leaders; unequal commerce; environmental degradation; and cultural aggressions.  The Declaration considers OAS to be decadent and shameful, and in the service of the centers of power.  It maintains that the failure of the strategy of the OAS Secretary General shows that Venezuela is not alone, and the failure is a victory for morality and Bolivarian ideas.  Meanwhile, Venezuelan Foreign Minister Delcy Rodríguez observed that the failure of the OAS to apply the Democratic Charter is a result of the fact that the political reality of Latin America has changed, and it is not what it was in the 1950s.

     On April 16, an extraordinary session of the Permanent Council of OAS approved the convoking of a meeting of ministers of foreign relations to discuss the situation in Venezuela, without establishing a date for the meeting.  The convocation of the meeting was approved by 19 states, with 10 against, four abstentions, and one absence. Venezuela denounced US efforts to apply pressure on member states to support action against Venezuela, and it announced its withdrawal from OAS.

      In response to the convoking of a meeting of foreign ministers, the Cuban Ministry of Foreign Relations issued a declaration on April 27. It maintained that the convoking of the meeting is consistent with the traditional role of OAS as “an instrument of imperialist domination in the hemisphere, with the goal of breaking the sovereignty, independence and dignity of Our America.” OAS, the Declaration asserted, consistently has turned its back on the people, acting in subordination to “oligarchical and imperialist interests.”  “It has been absent when our region has been the victims of political, economic and military interventions and aggressions, or of serious violation of human rights and democracy.”  OAS, the Declaration maintains, is incapable of representing the interests and values of the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.  It has imposed a false democratic creed, responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and for the poverty and exclusion of millions.  The OAS does not respect the equality and self-determination of states, and “it conspires against and subverts genuine and legitimate governments constituted with demonstrated popular backing.”  The Declaration concludes that the despicable conduct of OAS against Venezuela confirms that, “when there is a government that is not in the interests of the circles of imperial power and their allies, it will be attacked.”  

    The OAS is the diplomatic front of the battle against Venezuela.  Another front has been an economic war waged by the commercial elite in Venezuela (see “Economic and media war against Venezuela” 6/9/2016).  In addition, since the beginning of April, a sustained campaign of fascist-like violence has been unleashed by the Right, with the intention of establishing an international image of chaos and ungovernability, as a prelude and pretext for U.S. military intervention. We will look at the campaign of violence in a subsequent post.

     I am sorry for the delay since my last post.  I have been busy finalizing revisions for my book, The Evolution and Significance of the Cuban Revolution, which is being published by Palgrave Macmillan.  I continue today with reflections on Venezuela, following up on my posts of April 21 and April 25.

     I very much recommend taking a look at the speech by Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro at the political-cultural act of solidarity with Venezuela in Havana, Cuba, on April 10, 2017.  It illustrates the form in which charismatic leaders forge understandings in the context of crises of political struggle, thus demonstrating the process of the evolution of theory in the context of practice. The study of the speeches of charismatic revolutionary leaders is fertile ground for developing our revolutionary consciousness.

      The political crisis in Venezuela is the result of violent attacks by gangs supported by the Venezuelan Right with the support of the U.S. government.  Using its control of the international media of communication, the Right is portraying Venezuela as a country in chaos, providing selected images of violence for which the Right itself is responsible.  The Organization of American States has been enlisted in support of the cause, and the Secretary General of OAS, thus far without success, has been seeking to obtain OAS condemnation of Venezuela or the recommendation of sanctions. The OAS condemnation would serve as a prelude and a pretext for a U.S. military intervention in Venezuela, in order to establish a government consistent with its interests, inasmuch as such a government likely could not be attained through electoral or constitutional means.

      Speaking in Cuba in the context of this struggle and crisis, Maduro focuses on the role of the Organization of American States in carrying out U.S. interests.  He recalls that the OAS was created in 1948 with the intention of creating a structure that would enable the United States to obtain Latin American diplomatic support for U.S. action against any Latin American country that would challenge its hegemonic interests.  Enjoying enormous power and prestige at that time, the United States was able to establish the OAS as its “colonial ministry,” as called by Maduro, citing the Cuban foreign minister of the early 1960s, Raúl Roa.  Maduro sees an analogy between OAS expulsion of Cuba in 1962 and the interventionist conduct of OAS with respect to Venezuela today.  Given the role of the OAS as an instrument of U.S. interests, Maduro questions whether Venezuela should remain in the organization.  Indeed, the South American nation subsequently did announce on April 26 its withdrawal from the OAS.  Cuba, it should be noted, did not rejoin the organization when its expulsion was rescinded in 2009.  

     In his analysis of the historic moment, Maduro interprets the Cuban Revolution as of transcendental importance for the neocolonized peoples of the world.  In his view, the triumph of the Cuban Revolution in 1959 established a new possible reality for the peoples of the Third World, thus marking the dawning of a new historic period.  For this reason, the Cuban Revolution had to be destroyed by the imperialist powers, but as a result of the determination and intelligence of the Cuban leadership and its people, they could not do it.  

       The discourse of Maduro formulates various concepts and interpretations that are common among Third World revolutionaries. He formulates a grand narrative that finds meaning in human history. He has historic memory of the global process of colonialism, slavery and extermination, carried out by the educated and cultured of Europe. He possesses consciousness of the historic struggle of the colonized peoples in defense of their national sovereignty, their cultural autonomy and their rights.  He has faith in the future of humanity, which, he believes, will be victorious in creating a more just, democratic and sustainable world.  

      Maduro sees free trade agreements between developed and underdeveloped nations as a new form of economic colonialism. Consistent with the classic Third World project of national and social liberation (see various posts in the category Third World), Maduro sees the importance of developing diverse forms of production as well as South-South cooperation, breaking from the peripheral economic role in relation to the core.   The petroleum era is over, he maintains, and Venezuela must overcome dependency on petroleum through diversification of production and regional integration, overcoming the core-peripheral relation though South-South cooperation.  For Maduro, economic development is the principal task confronting Latin American countries, and this is why the road is through regional organizations like ALBA, and not transnational organizations directed by the interests of the core powers, like OAS.  In this emphasis on economic development through a new form of regional integration, Maduro’s views are consistent with those of the “socialism for the twenty-first century” that has emerged in Latin America.

     In struggle of the neocolonized to save humanity, Maduro discerns the important role of charismatic leaders, like Fidel and Chávez, who possessed exceptional understanding as well as unbounded commitment to universal human values.  He notes, for example, that Chávez understood how to lead in the new stage of struggle, overcoming ideological divisions by lifting up a Latin Americanist doctrine.  And both Fidel and Chávez knew to unify the revolution in Venezuela and the Cuban Revolution.  The leadership of Fidel and Chávez, Maduro observes, stands in contrast to the shameful subordination of the local hierarchies to imperialist interests, who sold their dignity.  
   
     Maduro is a former bus driver educated through a process of leadership in worker’s unions and social-political movements.  He speaks in the everyday language of the humble people of the earth, with a simple and direct discourse that is full of insight into structures of domination.  With revolutionary faith, he proclaims that, however powerful and clever the forces of imperialism may be, we have morality on our side as well as the determination to advance in our social and economic development.  We will fulfill our destiny of attaining an historic victory over imperialism.  We belong to a revolution born in history and that is called by history to prevail.