|
Fidel exposes Bush’s lies and slander
to justify the measures against Cuban Americans and
their families on the island
•
Speech made by Fidel Castro Ruz,
president of the Republic of Cuba, at the ceremony
marking the 51st anniversary of the attack on the
Moncada and Carlos Manuel de Cespedes Garrisons, at
the Central University of Las Villas, Santa Clara,
July 26, 2004.
Dear
fellow Cubans;
Distinguished guests:
On
this 51st anniversary of the attack on the Moncada
Garrison on July 26, 1953 I shall devote my words to
a sinister character who is threatening, insulting
and slandering us. This is not a whim or an
agreeable option; it is a necessity and a duty.
On
June 21, at the Anti-Imperialist Forum I read
Epistle Number Two to the president of the United
States, responding to an infamous State Department
report on trafficking in human beings, one of those
reports that the government of that country is wont
to issue, as if it were the supreme moral judge of
the world. In that document Cuba is accused of being
one of the countries that promotes sexual tourism
and child pornography.
Hardly two weeks went by, and instead of maintaining
a decent silence in the face of irrefutable truths
contained in the Epistle, the wire services brought
news of an election speech by Bush in Tampa, Florida
containing new, more perfidious accusations and
insults, clearly aimed at slandering Cuba and
justifying the threats of aggression and the brutal
measures that he had just taken against our people.
The
French press agency AFP reported the following from
Tampa on July 16:
“President George Bush launched a harsh
attack on Cuba when he defined it as ‘a major
destination for sex tourism’ and said that the
United States has a special duty to lead a world
struggle against human trafficking for forced labour
or sexual purposes.”
“Cuba is one of the 10 countries cited
by the State Department in a report issued in June
in which it lists the governments which tolerate
human trafficking or fail to fight this crime.”
“The
regime of Fidel Castro has turned Cuba into a major
destination for sex tourism replacing South East
Asia as a destination for pedophiles and sex
tourists from the United Sates and Canada," Bush
claimed.
“At a conference in Tampa, Florida, the
president pointed to Cuba as one of the worst
offenders in this area.”
“Sex tourism is a vital source of hard
currency to keep his corrupt government afloat,” he
claimed.
“Bush said that putting an end to human
trafficking will be an essential part of his foreign
policy.”
“The traffic in human beings brings
shame and suffering to our country and we shall lead
the fight against it,” he promised.
“You are in a fight against evil, and
the American people are grateful for your dedication
and service,” he told those at the conference.
“Human life is the gift of our Creator
and it should never be for sale.”
A dispatch from the Spanish press agency
EFE indicated:
“We also face a problem only 90 miles
off our shores, Bush said in Florida.”
“He quoted a study which found that
Cuba has "replaced South East Asia as a destination
for pedophiles and sex tourists."
“As restrictions on travel to Cuba were
eased during the 1990s, the study found an influx of
American and Canadian tourists contributed to a
sharp increase in child prostitution in Cuba."
“My administration is working toward a
comprehensive solution of this problem: The rapid,
peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba.”
“We have put a strategy in place to
hasten the day when no Cuban child is exploited to
finance a failed revolution and every Cuban citizen
will live in freedom.”
“Bush said that ‘Human life is the gift
of our Creator and it should never be for sale.”
“It takes a special kind of depravity to
exploit and hurt the most vulnerable members of
society. Human traffickers rob children of their
innocence; they expose them to the worst of life
before they have seen much of life. Traffickers tear
families apart. They treat their victims as nothing
more than goods and commodities for sale to the
highest bidder.”
And
to top off this singular news, the same press
dispatch added some words spoken by John Ashcroft in
his speech introducing Bush to the National Training
Conference on Human Trafficking:
“In the 19th Century President Abraham
Lincoln held firm to a vision of freedom for all and
was rightly called the great emancipator.”
“In the 21st Century we have a great
leader who has made us see that liberty is not a
gift from the United States to the world but a gift
to humanity from the Almighty.”
Another wire report from the English news agency
Reuters read:
“Friday, the US president accused the
Cuban president of having turned his Caribbean
island into a sex tourism destination and of
contributing to the world problem of human
trafficking”.
The
Italian press agency ANSA reported:
“The regime in Havana is adding to its
crimes: it welcomes sex tourism”, said Bush who even
repeated a supposed quote by Castro, ‘Cuba has the
cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the
world.’"
Subsequently, the wire services have reported that
the quotation of something I allegedly said on this
subject, which the US President used in the Tampa
speech I just mentioned to back up his grave
accusations, was taken from a paper on Cuba written
by Charles Turnbull, a law student from Vanderbilt
University in the United States, who has
emphatically stated that Bush’s speech misconstrued
the real meaning of a sentence included in his work,
and clarified this and other matters in the
following way:
“Prostitution boomed in the Caribbean
nation after the collapse of the Soviet Union¼”
“Castro, who had outlawed prostitution
when he took power in 1959, initially had few
resources to combat it. But beginning in 1996, Cuban
authorities began to crack down on the practice.”
“Although it still exists, it is far
less visible and it would be inaccurate to say the
government promotes it”.
On
Monday, July 19, Bush administration officials
admitted they had no other source for the quote
except the paper written by the aforementioned
student.
Given the fact that it was demonstrated that the US
President had launched an extremely grave accusation
based on a sentence found in a paper written by an
American student, who himself refuted the deliberate
way Bush misconstrued it, It is hard to imagine a
more bizarre response than that given by a White
House spokesperson when told about this refutation.
According to the news agency report, the
spokesperson simply, “¼defended
the inclusion [of the sentence] arguing that it
expressed an essential truth about Cuba”,
in other words, for the White House “the
essential truth about Cuba” is anything that the
president conjures up in his mind whether it has
anything to do with reality or not.
This
is exactly the kind of fundamentalist approach that
the President constantly resorts to when there are
more than enough data, arguments, truth, reasons,
and facts on a particular subject, but the only
determining factor is the idea he has in his mind or
the idea that suits him: anything becomes the
absolute and irrefutable truth simply because Mr.
Bush imagines it to be so.
Many
people in the world who know very little about the
Cuban Revolution might fall victim to the lies and
tricks the US government spreads through the huge
media available to it.
But
there are many others, especially in poor countries
who are aware of what the Cuban Revolution is about,
of its marked dedication, from the very beginning,
to provide education and healthcare services to all
its children and the whole population; its spirit of
solidarity that has led it to cooperate selflessly
with dozens of Third World countries; its strict
adherence to the highest moral values, its ethical
principles, its lofty concept of the dignity and
honour of its homeland and its people for which
Cuban revolutionaries have always been willing to
give up their lives. There is no doubt that these
many friends, all over the world, will be wondering
how it is possible that such unspeakable, foul
slander could be hurled against Cuba.
This
obliges me to give a most serious and honest
explanation of the causes, which in my view, give
rise to these inconceivable, irresponsible
statements by the president of the most powerful
nation on the planet, the same who is threatening to
wipe the Cuban Revolution from the face of the
Earth.
I
shall do this as objectively as possible, making no
arbitrary statements or shamelessly misconstruing
other people’s words, sentences and concepts. I
shall avoid any petty sentiment of vengeance or
personal dislike.
A
theme that has been widely documented in several
books by outstanding American scientific authors and
other personalities is the current US President’s
alcoholism, which lasted two decades when he was
between 20 and 40 years old. This feature has been
rigorously and impressively dealt with, from a
psychiatric point of view and using scientific
criteria, by Dr. Justin A. Frank in a now famous
book called “Bush on the Couch”.
Dr.
Frank begins by saying that it is important to
scientifically define whether Bush was an alcoholic,
or if he still is one. He has literally said:
“¼ the more pressing question involves
the influence his years of heavy drinking and
subsequent abstinence still have on him and those
around him”. (p.39)
He
goes on to explain and I quote verbatim:
“Alcoholism is a potentially fatal,
lifelong disease that is notoriously difficult to
arrest permanently” (p. 40)
Later, referring to the man who is now president of
the United States, he says:
“Bush has said publicly that he quit
drinking without the help of AA (an organization
dedicated to helping alcoholics) or any substance
abuse program, claiming that he stopped forever with
the assistance of such spiritual tools as bible
study and conversations with the evangelist Billy
Graham”.
On page 40 of the book he recounts that,
according to ex-presidential speechwriter David
Frum, when Bush took over the Oval office he
summoned a group of religious leaders, asked for
their prayers and told them:
“There is only one reason that I am in
the Oval Office and not a bar¼ I found faith, I
found God. I am here because of the power of
prayer”.
Dr.
Frank thinks that this statement might be true and
goes on to say the following:
“¼surely all Americans would like to
believe that the president no longer drinks, even if
we have no way of knowing for certain. If so, he
fits the profile of a former drinker whose
alcoholism has been arrested but not treated”.
He
then adds:
“ Former drinkers who abstain without
the benefit of the AA program are often referred to
as “dry drunks”, a label that has been bandied about
on the Internet and elsewhere in reference to Bush.
“Dry drunk” isn’t a medical term, and not one I use
in a clinical setting. But even without labelling
Bush as such, it’s hard to ignore the many troubling
elements of his character among the traits that the
recovery literature associates with the condition,
including grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance,
detachment, denial of responsibility, a tendency
toward over-reaction and an aversion to
introspection.” (p. 41)
Dr.
Frank insists that he has personally treated
alcoholics who held their addiction in check without
proper treatment but that they are generally not
very successful in learning to control the anxiety
that they once tried to suppress by drinking and he
explains that:
“Their rigid attempts to manage anxiety
make any psychological insight hard-won. Some can’t
even face the anxiety of admitting their alcoholism.
Dr.
Frank then goes on to say:
“Without that admission, I have found,
even former drinkers cannot truly change, or learn
from their own experience”.
And
then referring to Bush specifically he argues the
following:
“The pattern of blame and denial, which
recovering alcoholics work so hard to break, seems
to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it’s
rarely limited to his or her drinking. The habit of
placing blame and denying responsibility is so
prevalent in George W. Bush’s personal history that
it is apparently triggered by even the mildest
threat”
“¼ The rigidity of Bush’s behaviour is
perhaps most readily apparent in his well-documented
reliance on his daily routines —the famously short
meetings, sacrosanct exercise schedule, daily Bible
readings, and limited office hours. A healthy person
is able to alter his routine; a rigid one cannot”.
(p.43)
“Of course” —the
eminent US doctor goes on, and I quote— “we all
need rest and relaxation, time to regroup, but Bush
appears to need it more than most. And this is
hardly a surprise —among other reasons, because the
anxiety of being president might pose a real risk of
leading him back to drinking.” (p. 43)
“Along
with rigid routines go rigid thought processes
—another hallmark of the Bush presidency. We see it
in the stubborn, almost obsessive way in which he
holds on to ideas and plans after they have been
discredited, from his image of himself as a “uniter,
not a divider” to his conviction that Iraq held
weapons of mass destruction (or, in the absence of
such weapons, that somehow “America did the right
thing in Iraq” nevertheless). Such rigidity of
thought is not motivated by simple stubbornness; the
untreated alcoholic, consumed with the task of
managing the anxieties that might make him reach for
a drink, simply can’t tolerate any threat to his
status quo”.
And
Dr. Frank adds that such intolerance generally leads
to responses that are out of proportion to the
magnitude of the actual threat.
“This may help to explain the dramatic
contrast between George W’s response to Saddam
Hussein and that of his father, who carefully built
a coalition, took action only after Kuwait had been
invaded, and then proceeded with prudence and
caution once the fighting was underway — the
behaviour of a seasoned leader who knew he was
responsible for countless others’ lives, not an
alcoholic accustomed to taking dramatic measures to
protect his own.”
Continuing his analysis, Dr. Frank indicates:
“Two questions that the press seems
particularly determined to ignore have hung silently
in the air since before Bush took office: Is he
still drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all
the years he did spend drinking? Both questions need
to be addressed in any serious assessment of his
psychological state”. (p.48)
With
regard to the first question, he points out the
possibility that Bush is managing his anxiety with
medication to keep him off alcohol and he makes
special reference to his strange behaviour at press
conferences. On this point he says:
“In writing about Bush’s halting
appearance in a press conference just before the
start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media
critic Tom Shales speculated that “the president may
have been ever so slightly medicated”.
“More troubling though, are the
appearances that arouse suspicion not because of how
he talks but what he says. He has repeatedly engaged
in confabulation, filling in gaps in his memory with
what he believes are facts —most notably on July 14,
2003, when he stood next to Kofi Annan and made up
the idea that America had given Saddam “a chance to
allow the inspectors in, and he wouldn’t let them
in”. (As The Washington Post noted, “Hussein
had, in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had
opposed extending their work because he did not
believe them effective”. Confabulation is a common
phenomenon among drinkers, as is perseveration,
which is evident in Bush’s tendency to repeat key
words and phrases, as if the repetition helps him
remain calm and stay on track.” (p. 49)
And
Dr. Frank concludes his analysis of these two
questions with the following words:
“Even if we assume, moreover, that
George W. Bush’s drinking days are behind him, the
question remains how much lasting damage may have
been done before he stopped —beyond the considerable
impact on his personality that we can trace to his
untreated abstinence. Any comprehensive
psychological or psychoanalytical study of President
Bush would have to explore how much the brain and
its functions are changed by more than twenty years
of heavy drinking. In a recent study out of the
University of California/San Francisco Medical
Centre, researchers found that heavy drinkers who do
not call themselves alcoholics reveal that “their
level of drinking constitutes a problem that
warrants treatment”. The study found that the heavy
drinkers in its sample were “significantly impaired”
on measures of working memory, processing speed,
attention, executive function and balance. Serious
research about long-term recovery from alcohol abuse
is still underway. Science has established that
alcohol itself is toxic to the brain, both to its
anatomy (as the brain gets smaller and fissures
between and around the hemisphere get larger) and to
its neurophysiology. But recovery does occur with
continued sobriety, extending over a five-year
period for many alcoholics. Bush claims to have been
sober for more than fifteen years, and very well may
have improved to pre-alcohol levels. However, even
chronic alcoholics who recover their compromised
mental functions often suffer lingering damage to
their ability to process new information. Important
neuropsychological functions are impaired: the new
information is essentially put into a file that is
lost in the brain.
“Former heavy drinkers often have
trouble distinguishing between relevant and
inconsequential information. They also may lose some
of their ability to maintain concentration. All one
has to do to observe Bush’s inattention is watch him
listening to a speech given by someone else, watch
his behaviour at times on the campaign trail, or
consider the obviously desperate effort he makes to
retain focus in every speech he gives.” (p.50)
Finally, Dr. Frank points out that Bush would reduce
the fear of many Americans by submitting himself to
psychological tests that could scientifically
measure the effects of alcoholism on his brain
function and warns:
“Otherwise, we are left to suspect —with
reason— that our president may be impaired in his
ability to make sense of complex ideas and
briefings” (p. 51)
And
he ends up by saying:
“We all may be a little afraid to find
out: after all, he has already held office for three
years and has led our nation into war. But if we
fail to do so, the consequences may indict every one
of us”. (p. 51)
Another aspect discussed in depth and in detail by
Dr. Justin A. Frank in this book, “Bush on the
Couch”, is that of President Bush’s religious
fundamentalism.
Dr.
Frank explains how, in trying to find relief from
the internal chaos that drink sometimes appeased but
eventually intensified, Bush may have found in
religion a source of peace, not totally different
from that given by alcohol, as well as a set of
rules which help him to manage both the external
world and his inner spiritual world.
He
suggests that an analysis of the role of
fundamentalism in Bush’s life would show that one of
the many ways that Bush employs religion as a
defence mechanism is by using it as a substitute for
illegal substances and says that Bush uses religion
to simplify and even replace thought so that, to a
certain extent, he does not even need to think. He
adds that Bush, by putting himself on the side of
good —on God’s side— places himself above mundane
discussion and debate. Religion serves as a shield
to protect him from challenges, including those that
he himself would otherwise create.
Dr.
Frank wonders how Bush reached this point and then
explains that, the Bush family tradition has long
been fuelled by faith, by the belief in a God linked
closely to moral rectitude but he makes this
distinction:
“Yet President Bush’s religious
orientation represents an important departure from
his family. Though certain aspects of the family
tradition have been maintained —notably the
formality of religious participation— his mid-life
conversion to a more fundamentalist approach stands
in dramatic contrast to the spiritual life of his
father¼” (p.56)
“And a review of the events leading up
to Bush’s conscious embrace of fundamentalism shows
that it clearly occurred at a moment when he was
reaching for solutions, in a time of almost
desperate need.”
Dr
Frank goes on to explain that fundamentalist
religions narrow the universe of opportunities and
divide the world into good and bad, in absolute
terms that leave no space for questioning and on
this point he argues:
“The view of the self is similarly
simplified. Just as fundamentalist creationist
teachings deny history, the fundamentalist notion of
conversion or rebirth encourages the believer to see
himself as disconnected from history. George W.
Bush’s evasive, self-serving defence of his life
before he was born again displays just this
tendency. “It doesn’t do any good to inventory the
mistakes I made when I was young”, he has insisted.
“I think the way ¼ to answer questions about
specific behaviour is to remind people that when I
was young and irresponsible, I was young and
irresponsible. I changed¼” To the believer, the
power of spiritual absolution not only erases the
sins of the past, but divorces the current self from
the historical sinner”. (p.60)
Dr.
Frank makes it clear that there is nothing
inherently unnatural in the fact that Bush seeks
protection from his faith and that, even when this
makes him stronger, the rigidity of his thought and
speech patterns and of his agenda point to a
considerable fragility. He explains that Bush’s fear
of everything —from disagreement to terrorist
attacks— are sometimes painfully visible, even (or
especially) through his denials, and that he is a
man desperately seeking protection. Dr. Frank
wonders: “But what is George W. Bush so eager to
protect himself against?” and he answers the
question with the following analysis:
“His tightly held belief system shields
him from challenges to his ideas —from critics and
opponents, but, more important, from himself. Just
beneath the surface, it’s hard not to believe that
he suffers from an innate fear of falling apart, a
fear too terrifying for him to confront.” (p.64)
“For someone so desperate not to lose
his way, clinging to a belief (or even a few key
phrases), and sticking to them, is yet another way
to protect against falling apart. President Bush’s
press conferences have offered disturbing evidence
of this ongoing anxiety —evidence so unmistakable
that it’s little wonder that the White House has
proven so hesitant to schedule such events at all.
After one particularly disastrous performance in
July 2003, the Slate political columnist
Timothy Noah noted that: “Bush seemed jangled”; in a
damning editorial the following day, The New York
Times noted that the president’s answers were
“vague and sometimes nearly incoherent” —suggesting,
perceptively, that Bush was “bedazzled by his
administration’s own mythmaking”
He
gives some examples of phrases Bush used repeatedly
during that press conference:
“And so we’re making progress.
It’s slowly but surely making progress of
bringing the —those who terrorize their fellow
citizens to justice, and making progress
about convincing the Iraqi people that freedom is
real. And as they become more convinced that freedom
is real, they’ll begin to assume more
responsibilities that are required in a free
society¼
“And the threat is a real
threat. It’s a threat that where —we
obviously don’t have specific data, we don’t know
when, where, what. But we do know a couple of
things¼obviously, we’re talking to foreign
governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them
the reality of the threat¼
“I don’t know how close we are to
getting Saddam Hussein. You know —it’s closer
that we were yesterday, I guess. All I know is we’re
on the hunt. It’s like if you had asked me right
before we got his sons how close we were to get his
sons, I’d say, I don’t know, but we’re on the
hunt.
“Well first of all, the war on terror
goes on, as I continually remind people¼ The
threat that you asked about, Steve, reminds us
that we need to be on the hunt, because the
war on terror goes on¼
“I just described to you that there is a
threat to the United States. There is no
doubt in my mind, Campbell, that Saddam Hussein was
a threat to the United States’ security, and
a threat to peace in the region¼
“Saddam Hussein was a threat. The
United Nations viewed him as a threat. That’s
why they passed twelve resolutions. Predecessors of
mine viewed him as a threat. We gathered a
lot of intelligence. That intelligence was good,
sound intelligence on which I made a decision¼ (pp.
65-66)
And
Dr. Frank goes on to say:
“So powerful are his fears that he can’t
even face them. His infamous early advice to
Americans less than two weeks after 9/11 —when he
told Americans to continue to shop and travel as
before, in apparent denial of the radical measures
he was at the same time taking in response to the
nation’s newfound vulnerability— suggests just how
simplistically he viewed the situation, closing
himself off to worry and anxiety. Compare his
response to that of New York’s mayor, Rudolph
Giuliani, who faced his fears, rolled up his sleeves
and got to work —making people feel far safer than
Bush’s stilted denial ever did.
“Bush has continued to cite divine
instruction to explain his actions since assuming
office. As reported in Israel’s Haaretz News, Bush
said, “God told me to strike at Al Qaida and I
struck them, and then he instructed me to strike at
Saddam, which I did”.
Finally, Dr. Frank offers these thoughts:
“The Biblical struggle of good and evil
has resonated throughout his discourse since 9/11,
from his repeated use of the term “crusade” to his
characterisation of the terrorists as “evildoers”
and grouping of Iraq, Iran and North Korea as the
“Axis of Evil”. At the same time, he presents the
United States as nothing more that a nation of
wholly innocent victims.
“In externalizing evil in this way,
while absolving America of responsibility, Bush has
transformed his unintegrated infantile worldview
into a starkly combative (and primitive) foreign
policy.
“Bush’s rhetoric” —Dr.
Frank concludes— “highlights how he identifies
the concepts of himself as president with both God
and America: for him these three appear to have
become somewhat interchangeable. Unable to mourn the
dead of 9/11 enough to allow for a full
investigation of how it happened —and what
responsibility we might have had— he blindly attacks
the “enemy” he perceives to be everywhere, a
terrorist suddenly hiding under rock”.
In
his book “Stupid White Men”, Michael Moore points
out that Bush exhibits obvious symptoms of not being
able to read at an adult level and writes the
following as part of an open letter to Bush:
“1. George, are you able to read and
write on an adult level?
“It appears to me and many others that,
sadly, you may be a functional illiterate. This is
nothing to be ashamed of¼ Millions of Americans
cannot read and write above a fourth grade level.
“But let me ask you this: if you have
trouble comprehending the complex position papers
you are handed as the Leader of the Mostly-Free
World, how can we entrust something like our nuclear
secrets to you?
“All the signs of illiteracy are there
—and apparently no one has challenged you about
them. The first clue was what you named as your
favourite childhood book, “The Very Hungry
Caterpillar”, you said.
“Unfortunately, that book wasn’t even
published until a year after you graduated from
college.”
“One thing is clear to everyone —you
can’t speak the English language in sentences we can
comprehend.
“If you are going to be
Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able to
communicate your orders. What if these little
slip-ups keep happening? Do you know how easy it
would be to turn a little faux pas into a
national-security nightmare?
“Your aides say that you don’t (can’t?)
read the briefing papers they give you, and that you
ask them to read them for you or to you.”
“Please, don’t take any of this
personally. Perhaps it’s a learning disability. Some
sixty million Americans have learning disabilities”.
In
his book “Against All Enemies”, Richard Clarke
writes that when Bush got to the White House, “Early
on we were told that the president is not a big
reader”.
Bob
Woodward’s book “Bush at War” tells that, in a
National Security Council meeting during the
Afghanistan war, Bush said: “I don’t read the
editorial pages. I don’t --the hyperventilation that
tends to take place around those cables, every
expert and every former colonel and all that, is
just background noise”.
Thus
far I have given a very brief summary of what has
been said on some points by outstanding Americans,
things which help to explain the strange behaviour
and aggressiveness of the US President.
I do
not want to elaborate now on more sensitive issues
like those whose exposure cost his life to J.H.
Hatfield, author of the book “fortunate son”, and
others of great interest analyzed by truly
brilliant, brave, eminent authors.
THE IDEA OF A PUNISHMENT VOTE IS GAINING GROUND
AMONG THOUSANDS OF CUBAN AMERICANS
Mr.
Bush’s lies and slanders and those of his closest
advisors were fabricated in a hurry to justify the
atrocious measures taken against Cuban-born people
living in the United States who have close family
ties in Cuba.
This
outrage, as we warned on June 21, might have adverse
political consequences in Florida, which could play
a decisive role in this year’s elections. The idea
of a punishment vote is gaining ground among
thousands of Cuban-Americans, many of whom would
normally have voted for Bush.
Hatred and blindness have led this administration to
take a stupid, immoral action under pressure from
the terrorist mob which gave Bush a fraudulent
victory when he had a million votes less than his
rival nationwide, and a narrow majority of 537 votes
in Florida, where thousands of African Americans
were prevented from exercising their right to vote,
while many decreased people ‘exercised’ theirs.
Fifteen or twenty thousand voters could sink his
hopes of re-election. These brutal measures have
also been criticized all over the country.
The
overwhelming majority of those who are members of or
run that terrorist mob —which decided nothing less
than the election of the president of the United
States— are former Batista supporters and their
descendents; or they are groups who for years have
been involved in acts of terrorism, pirate attacks,
assassination plots against Cuban revolutionary
leaders and all kinds of armed aggressions against
our country. Some of them were large landowners and
relatives of the upper middle classes who were
affected by revolutionary laws and who previously
had all kinds of privileges, while many of them have
amassed huge fortunes and have gained influence in
important power circles in the US governments.
Over
90 percent of those who have emigrated from Cuba
since the triumph of the Revolution have done so
through normal channels and for economic reasons,
their leaving authorized by the Revolution, which
placed no obstacles. But Cuban immigrants were
forced to undergo the humiliation of that powerful
mafia whose influence they could not easily ignore.
Unlike many millions of Latin Americans, including
Haitians and other Caribbeans, who emigrate legally
and illegally to the United States and are called
immigrants, Cubans, with no exception whatsoever,
are called exiles.
On
the other hand, the absurd Cuban Adjustment Act has
caused the loss of countless Cuban lives by
rewarding and encouraging illegal emigration and
giving Cubans extraordinary privileges that are not
granted to citizens of any other country in the
world.
Nevertheless, years ago, even before the collapse of
the Soviet Union and the special period that ensued,
and despite the risk of espionage and terrorist
plans originating in the United States which the
measures entailed, Cuba gave permits to émigrés so
they could visit their relatives and their country
of origin, whereas the Bush administration is
abruptly closing the doors because of its fanatical
obsession of bringing Cuba to its knees through
economic asphyxiation.
And,
to that same end of depriving our country of any
income whatsoever, he labels the tourist industry in
Cuba sexual tourism and calls those who visit our
country coming from the United States “paedophiles”
and “pleasure seekers”.
Nor
does Mr Bush hesitate in tarring Canadian tourists
with the same brush when everybody knows that the
overwhelming majority of them are pensioners and
senior citizens who, in the company of their
relatives, come to enjoy the exceptional safety and
tranquility, education, culture and hospitality that
they find in our country.
What
would Mr. Bush call the tens of millions of tourists
who visit the United States every year where
casinos, gambling dens, areas of male and female
prostitution and many other activities related to
pornography and sex abound, none of which
exist in Cuba and all of which are alien to the
revolutionary culture of our people?
What
would he call the tens of millions of Europeans who
visit Spain every year where many pages in the
papers are used to advertising the names, addresses,
physical, cultural and intellectual characteristics
and specialities and personal skills to suit every
taste of those who exercise the age-old profession
of prostitution? Would he call the US and Spanish
tourist industries sex tourism?
None
of the aforementioned activities take place in Cuba.
However, in the fevered and fundamentalist mind of
the all-powerful gentleman in the White House and in
those of his most intimate advisors, Cuba must now
be “saved” not only from “dictatorship,” Cuban
children must now be “saved from sexual exploitation
and trafficking in persons.” “The world must be
freed from this dreadful problem which takes place
90 miles away from the United States”.
Has
no one told him that in Cuba before the triumph of
the Revolution in 1959 some 100,000 women were
directly or indirectly involved in prostitution for
reasons of poverty, discrimination and lack of work
and that the Revolution educated these women and
found them jobs, and outlawed the so-called
“tolerance zones” which existed in the
pseudo-republic and the neo-colony installed by the
United States?
Has
no one told him that the Cuban children, whose
physical, mental and moral health is the number one
priority of the Revolution, are protected by more
severe laws than those of the United States and that
they all attend school, including more than 50,000
who suffer from mental or physical disabilities and
who, without exception, receive specialized care in
special education centres?
Has
no one told him that infant mortality is lower in
Cuba than it is in the United States and that it
continues to decrease?
Has
no one dared to whisper in his ear that Cuba
occupies an outstanding and internationally
recognized place in education; that health and
education services are free and extend to the whole
population; that today programs are underway in
education, health and culture that will place Cuba
far above all the other countries in the world?
The
historic session of the National Assembly of
People’s Power on July 1 and 2, exposed and
ridiculed the grotesque 400-plus-page report that
offers an ample account and full details of the
neo-colonial and annexationist programs the fascist
group which begot this disgusting project propose to
implement to the detriment of the Cuban people and
their sovereignty. This report has done nothing but
unite our people even more and give a boost to their
fighting spirit.
They
must be absolutely insane to talk of such things as
implementing literacy and vaccination programs in
Cuba where illiteracy was eradicated a long time
ago, where minimum school attendance is to ninth
grade and where children are vaccinated against 13
diseases. Actually, such programs should be applied
to tens of millions of Americans who are excluded,
who do not enjoy the benefits of social security and
who have not been to school or are completely
illiterate or functionally illiterate.
The
US administration has not even dared to say a single
word about the generous offer that our country made
of saving, within a short 5-year period, one life
for every life lost in the Twin Towers attack by
providing free health care to 3,000 US citizens who
have no access to healthcare services that are
indispensable for the preservation of life. Neither
have they replied to the question of whether or not
those who may decide to come to Cuba to take
advantage of this opportunity would be punished.
It
is really revealing that on the very same day that
Mr. Bush spouted such outrageous slanders and
threats, a prestigious American scientific
institution from California signed an agreement with
the Cuban Molecular Immunology Centre for
transferring technology developed in our country for
the clinical trials and later manufacture of three
promising vaccines in the battle against cancer,
which, as you know, kills more than half a million
Americans every year.
It
is only fair to acknowledge that in this case the US
authorities did not place any obstacles in its way.
This
fact shows how the fruits of everything I have
talked about before are beginning to emerge all over
our country, despite 45 years of a harsh blockade
and of aggressions by US governments.
And
these are not biological weapons, nor chemical
weapons, nor nuclear weapons; these are scientific
discoveries that could help all humanity.
It
is to be hoped that, in Cuba’s case, God does not
‘instruct’ Mr. Bush to attack our country but rather
inspires him to avoid this colossal mistake! He had
better check on any divine belligerent order by
consulting the Pope and other prestigious
dignitaries and theologians from the Christian
churches, in order to ascertain their opinion
Excuse me, Mr. President of the United States of
America, for not writing a third epistle to you this
time but it would have been difficult to analyze
this subject in that way. It might have been taken
for a personal insult and I rather adhere to common
courtesy.
Hail, Caesar! I say, but this time I add: Those who
are prepared to die have no fear of your enormous
power, of your unbridled rage, nor of your dangerous
and cowardly threats against Cuba! (APPLAUSE)
Long
live the truth! (Exclamations of ¡Viva!)
Long
live human dignity! (Exclamations of ¡Viva!)
July
26, 2004
(Ovation)
Translated by ESTI. |
