Center for a Free Cuba

Diario Las Americas 11 de diciembre de 2006

Por Frank Calzon

En el año 1901, el Senador por Conneticut Orville Platt, auspició una enmienda que confería a los Estados Unidos el derecho de intervenir en los asuntos internos de Cuba. El presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt derogó la infame enmienda Platt en 1934, pero aun hoy los políticos cubanos tratan instintivamente de implicar a Washington en los asuntos de la isla.

Hace unos días, 72 años después de la derogación de la enmienda Platt cuando ya casi nadie la recordaba, el hermano de Fidel y presidente en funciones, General Raúl Castro ha vuelto a mirar hacia el Norte.

En un ambiente de incertidumbre sobre el futuro del país y del régimen, el general-presidente ha declarado por segunda vez en los últimos cuatro meses que está dispuesto a sentarse a negociar con el gobierno norteamericano. Y es que no es fácil abandonar los malos hábitos.

Cuba atraviesa la peor crisis económica, social y política de su historia. Después de varios meses incapacitado, parece difícil que Fidel Castro regrese a tomar las riendas del poder y el General Raúl trata de posicionarse para mejor poder afrontar la crisis de la desaparición de Fidel. El impacto de una Cuba sin Fidel es muy grande en la isla. Hugo Chávez y no Raúl es el heredero del Comandante a nivel continental.

Aún así, las declaraciones de Raúl son bienvenidas: es mejor intercambiar palabras con el adversario que recurrir a las balas; pero el General yerra al elegir a Washington como su interlocutor. Después de 47 años de represión, Raúl debería abrir las negociaciones con los cubanos en la isla, -no con Washington- con el objetivo de transformar Cuba en un estado democrático y reconstruir su economía.
Esto nos lleva a 2002 y 2003 cuando más de 20.000 cubanos, con el deseo de comenzar ese diálogo, firmaron una petición que presentaron al parlamento cubano reclamando un plebiscito para determinar el futuro de la nación; pero a pesar de la Constitución Socialista en vigor, que establece la necesidad de su consideración,. Fidel Castro no le permitió discutir el asunto al parlamento.

Los años no perdonan y la generación que derrocó la dictadura de Batista en los años 50 se acerca a su final y, a pesar de las expectativas de Fidel Castro, la historia no le tiene un gran aprecio ni a él ni a su legado. Para los oficiales más jóvenes, la guerrilla contra Batista es historia pasada; algo similar ocurre con los jóvenes funcionarios del régimen y los dirigentes del partido comunista -algunos de los cuales han podido viajar al extranjero- y esperan más de la vida que miseria y una guerra sin fin.

Dentro de Cuba existen además voces valientes de la oposición democrática que, en la cárcel o “disfrutando” de una precaria libertad, sueñan con que se hagan realidad algunas de las promesas hechas por el joven Fidel en 1959: imperio de la ley, no más prisioneros políticos, honestidad en el gobierno, justicia social y libertad de pensamiento, de expresión, de reunión, para poder viajar al extranjero y para establecer negocios.

También se piden otras libertades como la de no participar en las manifestaciones de apoyo al régimen; la de disentir de las decisiones unánimes que expulsan de las escuelas a los estudiantes que se atreven a pensar por si mismos; la de no participar en las jornadas de trabajo “voluntario”; en resumen, el derecho a decir que no al gobierno.

La capacidad y laboriosidad de los cubanos son encomiables. Así ha quedado demostrado por su éxito económico en Estados Unidos, que se debe tanto a su trabajo como al ambiente de libertad en el que han podido vivir. Como resultado, la comunidad cubana en el extranjero, es un gran activo para el futuro de la isla. A principios de los años sesenta, Fidel Castro afirmó que los cubanos que huían de la isla nunca podrían regresar y los calificó de gusanos, traidores y cosas peores.

Hoy, los casi dos millones de exiliados cubanos, constituyen la fuente más importante de ayuda humanitaria que llega a la isla. Sin embargo, sus remesas podrían tener un impacto todavía mayor si, como ocurre en México o El Salvador, los cubanos tuvieran libertad para crear sus propios negocios para utilizar esas remesas en actividades económicas privadas en la isla.

Esas libertades económicas, que constituyen el motor del progreso en Estados Unidos y más recientemente en China, se les permiten a los extranjeros en Cuba, pero le son negadas sistemáticamente a los cubanos.

Esa sed de libertad, a la que el ex presidente Vaclav Havel se refería como “vivir en verdad” es universal. Hoy, con la eterna gratitud de los cubanos, Havel dirige el Comité Internacional para Promover la Democracia en Cuba.

Las mesas de discusión que llevaron la libertad a Checoslovaquia, al resto de los países de Europa Central, a Chile y a Sudáfrica fueron constituidas por los propios ciudadanos de esos países. La oferta de abrir el diálogo con Washington es una vieja fórmula para evitar la negociación de los propios cubanos para definir su futuro.

Ya en el tratado de París, los Estados Unidos se prestaron a negociar con España, el futuro de Cuba. En esa ocasión los cubanos estuvieron ausentes; pero los tiempos cambian y esta vez Washington le ha dicho al General-Presidente que debe comenzar por dejar hablar a los cubanos.

Frank Calzón es el director ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre en Washington, D.C.

Libertad Digital| Madrid, España. 11 de Diciembre del 2006

Por Frank Calzón

En el año 1901, el Senador por Conneticut Orville Platt, auspició una enmienda que confería a los Estados Unidos el derecho de intervenir en los asuntos internos de Cuba. El presidente Franklin Delano Roosevelt derogó la infame enmienda Platt en 1934, pero aun hoy los políticos cubanos tratan instintivamente de implicar a Washington en los asuntos de la isla. Hace unos días, 72 años después de la derogación de la enmienda Platt cuando casi nadie recuerda la dichosa enmienda, el hermano de Fidel y presidente en funciones, General Raúl Castro ha vuelto a mirar hacia el Norte.

En un ambiente de incertidumbre sobre el futuro del país y del régimen, el general-presidente ha declarado por segunda vez en los últimos cuatro meses que está dispuesto a sentarse a negociar con el gobierno norteamericano. Y es que no es fácil abandonar los malos hábitos. Cuba atraviesa la peor crisis económica, social y política de su historia. Después de varios meses incapacitado, parece difícil que Fidel Castro regrese a tomar las riendas del poder y el General Raúl trata de posicionarse para mejor poder afrontar la crisis de la desaparición de Fidel. El impacto de una Cuba sin Fidel es muy grande en la isla. Hugo Chávez, no Raúl, es el obvio heredero del Comandante a nivel continental.

Sea lo que sea, las declaraciones de Raul son bienvenidas: es mejor intercambiar palabras con el adversario que recurrir a las balas; pero el General yerra al elegir a Washington como su interlocutor. Después de 47 años de represión, Raúl debería abrir las negociaciones con los cubanos en la isla, no con Washington, con el objetivo de transformar Cuba en un estado democrático y reconstruir su economía.

Esto nos lleva a 2002 y 2003 cuando más de 20.000 cubanos, con el deseo de comenzar ese diálogo, firmaron una petición que presentaron al parlamento cubano reclamando un plebiscito sobre el futuro del país; pero a pesar de la Constitución Socialista en vigor, que establece la necesidad de su consideración,. Fidel Castro no le permitió discutir el asunto al parlamento del país.

Los años no perdonan y la generación que derrocó la dictadura de Batista en los años 50 se acerca a su final y, a pesar de las expectativas de Fidel Castro, la historia no le tiene un gran aprecio ni a él ni a su legado. Para los oficiales más jóvenes, la guerrilla contra Batista es historia pasada; algo similar ocurre con los jóvenes funcionarios del régimen y los dirigentes del partido comunistas (alguno de los cuales han podido viajar al extranjero) y esperan más de la vida que miseria y una guerra sin fin.

Dentro de Cuba existen además voces valientes de la oposición democrática que, en la cárcel o “disfrutando” de una precaria libertad, sueñan con que se hagan realidad algunas de las promesas hechas por el joven Fidel en 1959: imperio de la ley, no más prisioneros políticos, honestidad en el gobierno, justicia social y libertad de pensamiento, de expresión, de reunión, para viajar al extranjero y para establecer negocios. También se piden otras libertades como la de no participar en las manifestaciones de apoyo al régimen; la de disentir de las decisiones unánimes que expulsan a los estudiantes que se atreven a pensar por si mismos de las escuelas; la de no participar en las jornadas de trabajo “voluntario”; en resumen, el derecho a decir que no al gobierno.

La capacidad y el ingenio de los cubanos son encomiables. Así ha quedado demostrado por su éxito económico en Estados Unidos, que se debe tanto a su trabajo como al ambiente de libertad en el que han podido vivir. Como resultado, la comunidad cubana en el extranjero es un gran activo para el futuro de la isla.

A principios de los años sesenta, Fidel Castro afirmó que los cubanos que huían de la isla nunca serían bien recibidos y los calificó de gusanos, traidores y cosas peores. Hoy, los casi dos millones de cubanos que se encuentran en el exilio, constituyen la fuente más importante de ayuda humanitaria que llega a la isla. Sin embargo, sus remesas podrían tener un impacto todavía mayor en la economía cubana si, como ocurre en México o El Salvador, los cubanos tuvieran libertad para crear sus propios negocios para utilizar esas remesas en actividades económicas privadas en la isla. Esas libertades económicas, que constituyen el motor del progreso en Estados Unidos y más recientemente en China, se le permiten a los extranjeros, pero le son negadas sistemáticamente a los cubanos.

Esa sed de libertad, a la que el ex presidente Vaclav Havel se refería como “vivir en verdad”, es universal. Hoy, con la eterna gratitud de los cubanos, Havel dirige el Comité Internacional para Promover la Democracia en Cuba. Las mesas de discusión que llevaron la libertad a Checoslovaquia, al resto de los países de Europa Central, a Chile o a Sudáfrica fueron constituidas por los propios ciudadanos de esos países. La oferta de abrir el diálogo con Washington es una vieja fórmula para evitar la negociación de los propios cubanos para definir el futuro.

Ya en el tratado de París, los Estados Unidos se prestaron a negociar con España el futuro de Cuba. En esa ocasión los cubanos estuvieron ausentes; pero los tiempos cambian y esta vez Washington le ha dicho al General-Presidente que debe comenzar por dejar hablar a los cubanos.

Frank Calzon es el director ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre en Washington, D.C.

Sun Sentinel| December 8, 2006

By Frank Calzon

In 1901, Connecticut Sen. Orville Platt attached an amendment to a military spending bill guaranteeing the United States the right to intervene in Cuba’s internal affairs. U.S. President Franklin D. Roosevelt abrogated the infamous Platt Amendment in 1934. Nonetheless, even today Cuban politicians, when confronted by internal unrest, inevitably and instinctively react by trying to pull Washington into the crisis.

This week, 72 years after the Platt Amendment was shelved, and with hardly anyone remembering the amendment, Fidel Castro’s brother and putative successor was looking north. Uncertain about the future of his regime, Gen. Raúl Castro has said for the second time in four months that he is ready to sit down at the negotiating table with the United States. Old habits are difficult to put aside.

Cuba is in the midst of its worst economic, social and political crisis in many years. It is also increasingly looking like Fidel Castro will not return to power and his brother Raúl may try to confront that crisis. While exchanging words with the United States is better than exchanging bullets, General Castro erred when he picked Washington as his interlocutor. After 47 years of repression, he should be opening negotiations with islanders — not Washington — over the terms for transforming Cuba into a democratic state and for rebuilding the economy.

That takes us back to 2002 and 2003 when more than 20,000 Cubans, wanting to start a dialogue, signed a petition to the Cuban parliament asking for a plebiscite on the future of the country. Fidel Castro wouldn’t allow Cuba’s National Assembly to discuss the proposal.

The generation that overthrew the Batista dictatorship in the 1950s is drawing to an end, and despite Fidel Castro’s expectations, history has not been kind to him or his legacy. For younger officers, the guerrilla struggle against Batista is ancient history; young bureaucrats and Communist cadres — some of whom have been permitted to travel abroad — want more from life than endless struggle and scarcity.

Then there are the courageous voices of Cuba’s democratic opposition. Whether in prison or “enjoying” a precarious freedom, the opposition dreams of realizing some of the promises made by the young Fidel in 1959: a rule of law, no more political prisoners, decency in government, social justice and the freedom to think, speak, meet, travel and establish businesses of their own.

Other freedoms are also in demand: the right not to participate in political demonstrations of “support”; not to agree to the “unanimous” decisions expelling free-thinking students from school; not to participate in “voluntary” work days; in brief, the right to say “no” to their government.

The capacity and ingenuity of Cubans is undeniable. It has been demonstrated by their economic success in the United States, a success attributed to both their hard work and the free environment in which they live. As a result, the Cuban community abroad is a great asset for the future of the island. In the early ’60s, Castro told Cubans fleeing his reign that they would never be welcome back, that they were “scum,” “traitors” and worse.

Today the most important source of humanitarian assistance to the island are the almost 2 million Cuban exiles. Their remittances would have a much bigger impact if those receiving money from their families were, as Mexicans and Salvadorans are, allowed to operate private businesses. Those economic freedoms, the engines of progress in the United States and most recently in China, are denied to Cubans.

That thirst for freedom, which former Czech Republic President Vaclav Havel calls “living in truth,” is universal. Now, to the everlasting gratitude of the Cuban people, Havel leads the International Committee to Promote Democracy in Cuba.

The roundtable discussions that brought freedom to Czechoslovakia, the rest of Central Europe as well as Chile and South Africa took place among their own peoples. Offering to open talks with Washington is an old formula designed to keep from the negotiating table the very Cubans capable of defining a better future for the island.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

The Center for a Free Cuba
by Frank Calzon

I am in Washington, and it is four in the afternoon on June 28. The much ballyhooed obliteration of the U.S embargo against the Castro dynasty failed to materialize. The last congressional bill that could have provided the Castro butchers with a needed infusion of dollars by weakening U.S. measures against Havana was approved by the House less than one hour ago. America’s national interest trumped the corporate lobbyists and those inclined to give tyranny the benefit of the doubt who could not get the House to consider reversing trade and travel restrictions.

Nevertheless they got a consolation prize; the approved Financial Services bill now allows Castro to pay for American food imports on arrival in Cuba. Until now the Cuban dictator had to pay before the ship left the United States. But it is uncertain whether even that will survive what’s left of the congressional process before the bill is sent to the president for his consideration.

Still, a stand-alone bill lifting the embargo is always theoretically possible, although most unlikely given the congressional calendar.

In Washington, D.C., now, many understand the obvious: Castro wants U.S. dollars without curtailing his repression at home or his nurturing of like-minded anti-American governments throughout Latin America.

How could Washington have normal trade and diplomatic relations with a military dictatorship in Cuba while conditioning recognition for everyone else in the Western Hemisphere to minimal standards of multi-party democracy and respect for human rights?

When the congressional Democrats regained control earlier this year, many assumed that the lifting of Cuba sanctions was a done deal. A serious analysis of congressional realities could have shown differently. Instead, the discussion turned to name calling, disinformation and hateful characterizations of those unwilling to lie down and play dead.

Be that as it may, the House has reinstated the full amount requested by President Bush for programs to promote a transition to democracy in Cuba. A committee had voted to deny most of the funds. But in a bipartisan vote of 270 to 250, the House approved the $45 million the president requested.

This week for the first time in years, no amendment really hurting the enforcement of restrictions against Castro was approved. Reps. Charles Rangel, D-N.Y., Jeff Flake, R-Ariz., William Delahunt, D-Mass., Barbara Lee, D-Calif., and others willing to make concessions to Havana will probably have to wait until next year to try again.

Some of them argue that the issue is not to embrace a strong anti-American regime near American shores, which to this day harbors U.S. fugitives who murdered American police officers.

But as certain as the sun rises in the East, they will continue to confuse Castro with Cuba, as if the dictator and his victims were one and the same.

And if the impact of Bush’s message to the Congress on these matters cannot be discounted, the commitment and leadership of a key group of members of the House is the more admirable given the political cynicism and despair of American politics today. They are Reps. Lincoln and Mario Díaz-Balart and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, Republicans of South Florida, Elbio Sires, D-N.J., and Debbie Wasserman Schultz, a South Florida Democrat — and they do not take freedom for granted. Not only Cuban Americans and Cuba’s people, but the American nation are well served by them.

Ironically, the two most important actors in keeping U.S. sanctions in place are neither the president nor the members of Congress. They are Hugo Chávez and Fidel Castro with their constant efforts to harm and slander the United States; their hate and unwillingness to allow democracy and human rights in their countries nullify much of the nimble work of their apologists and agents of influence.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

The New York Sun| November 24, 2006

By Frank Calzon

In the eyes of grandmothers, all grandchildren are loved equally. In the eyes of the political world, that is not so. Let me tell you the story about Dr. Hilda Molina, who longs to see her two grandsons, Roberto Carlos, 11, and Juan Pablo, 5, living in Buenos Aires.

A distinguished physician, Dr. Molina lives in Havana, where she founded the International Center for Neurological Restoration, a renowned neurosurgical unit. For many years, Cuba’s government showered her with medals. She was a prominent member of the Communist Party and a delegate to the Cuban legislature. Today she is not allowed to leave Cuba. She is hostage of Dictator Fidel Castro’s political enmity.

Why the change? Dr. Molina dared to challenge the Castro government’s policy of preferential treatment for foreign patients, who pay the government for their care in U.S. dollars, while the list of Cuban citizens waiting for care grows ever longer.

Dr. Molina returned her medals and resigned in protest from Cuba’s Parliament and Communist Party. She is now banned from practicing medicine and lives with her ailing 82-year-old mother. Though her children and grandchildren, living in Argentina, want the two women to visit, Cuba’s government refuses to issue them visas.
It is a peculiar contrast to what happened when Elian Gonzalez, the young boy rescued off the coast of Florida in the debris of a raft, became the center of an international custody battle between the Florida relatives of his mother, who died in the attempt to flee Cuba, and his father in Cuba. The legal battle over whether Elian should stay or return to Cuba provoked a public furor and was waged for months. While it was waged, Elian’s father, grandmothers, and school friends were allowed to visit him in America.

Eventually, Elian returned to Cuba to become another gear in Mr. Castro’s continuing anti-American propaganda machine.

Roberto Carlos and Juan Pablo benefit from no similar uproar over Mr. Castro’s refusal to let their grandmother and great-grandmother visits them in Argentina. Most American pundits don’t even know they exist. The New York-based National Council of Churches, so instrumental in the campaign to reunite Elian with his Cuban family, and congressmen such as New York Democrats Jose Serrano and Charles Rangel, who took to the airwaves to champion family reunions, have had little or nothing to say about Dr. Molina and her grandchildren.

Argentina’s president, Nestor Kirchner, a friend of the Castro regime, tried to intercede. Dr. Molina and her mother even spent several days at the Argentine Embassy in Havana, prompting speculation in Buenos Aires that they would be given political asylum. An angry Mr. Castro then prevailed on President Kirchner to tell the women to leave. They did, and in the aftermath, the chief of staff of Argentina’s foreign minister was fired to pacify the Castro regime.

Dr. Molina and her mother now live in a modest two-room apartment in Havana, not far from Revolutionary Square, the site of many speeches by Cuba’s leader. Her telephone is monitored and often interrupted. Her home has been searched and her computer and various books confiscated. She is watched constantly by Mr. Castro’s State Security.
Even so, she remains willing to talk with foreign reporters. In one of the few articles about her outside Florida, The New York Sun on August 10, 2006, published a piece from the Daily Telegraph by Jimmy Miller. Mr. Miller, who visited her in Havana, wrote: “she remains outcast but not downcast. ‘I am free because I am a dissident’ she says. ‘I think freely.’”

Among other things, she continues to denounce the Castro regime’s practice of encouraging Cuban women with “problem pregnancies” to get abortions. Encouraging abortion is one way the Cuban government keeps infant-mortality rates low. “At risk” babies who might require special care just aren’t born, and abortions aren’t included in infant-death counts.

Kim Campbell, former prime minister of Canada, French philosopher Andre Gluckman, and Branislaw Geremik, once a Polish dissident and now a member of the European Parliament, recently wrote to General Raul Castro, Cuba’s acting president. They appealed to him as “a father and grandfather” to allow Dr. Molina and her mother to travel to Buenos Aires to visit their grandchildren and great-grandchildren.

“Neither of them is under a judicial order that would deny them the right to travel. … Dr. Molina and her mother are ready to travel to join their family as soon as your
government issues the necessary passports and exit permits,” they wrote.

With Mr. Castro hospitalized and power transferred to his brother Raul, some are calling for American concessions, saying that things have changed and Raul Castro is a pragmatic man. It remains to be seen if the general’s pragmatism extends to permitting two elderly women to travel to Argentina to embrace the grandchildren they long to meet and have loved from afar.

The Miami Herald October 30, 2006

By Frank Calzón
October is coming to a close, but Fidel Castro hangs on. His regime is now as ready as it ever will be to deal with the unthinkable: Cuba without Fidel.

Newspaper obituaries have been updated and require only a date, time of death and perhaps a comment or two from Gabriel García Márquez and other such luminaries.

The world believes that El Comandante is on his deathbed. Yet he has dodged the reaper before. His has been a life of caution, ruthlessness, smarts and luck. There is a small chance that he will recover and disappoint enemies calling attention to his crimes as well as friends who have concluded that it’s time for him to go.

Imagine: The most feared man in the history of the island is now old and sick, sedated and hooked to a battery of the latest medical technology. Relatives are gathering.
Then imagine that in the twilight of his mind, the aged dictator no longer feels tired and is no longer old. He is barefoot, riding the brown pony his father gave him for his seventh birthday. He is at the edge of a creek that flows through the forest near Birán. Falling in and out of consciousness, he is in mid-air with a slam-dunk on the basketball court of the Jesuits’ Belen Preparatory School.
Then, he is fleeing with a rifle, leaving others to die, be imprisoned and tortured after a failed attack on Batista’s army barracks. He has no regrets as he runs. He must save himself for History — for the Revolution to come.

Then the reality: People he doesn’t recognize are at his side. He is cold. Dalia Soto del Valle, his wife of more than 30 years is whispering. He is bewildered, why is this middle-aged woman kissing him on his forehead.
Slipping into another dream, he is talking with Arnaldo, a brave man, tough as nails. Arnaldo was a country hick when he joined the Revolution, risking his life to protect Fidel. Now he is a general, back from Africa where he was a splendid battlefield leader of Cuba’s expeditionary forces. Too bad, he’s been making jokes about the commander-in-chief and carelessly telling people that Raúl has been covering up narco-trafficking through Cuba. For such disrespect Arnaldo has been sentenced to die.

He could commute the sentence, but people don’t understand the heavy burdens of leadership. El guajiro has grown too big for his breeches. So what if Arnaldo is popular. The more popular, the more dangerous he is. Faced with disrespect and disloyalty, a leader does not hesitate. General Arnaldo Ochoa must die.

The Comandante needs rest. Only brother Raúl and Fidel’s wife — Cuba’s unknown, unseen ”first lady” — are allowed in the room.

Hugo Chávez has called. Another wave of thoughts engulf the failing leader, “What might I have done if I had been born in Venezuela with its oil reserves and I stood up to the Yankees. If Gorbachev had listened to me, he would still be in the Kremlin. If it weren’t for our Revolution, Cuba would have no dignity. Cubans are lazy and ungrateful, but we are an example to Bolivia, to North Korea, to Iran, to progressives all over the world. We are not Costa Rica. We are not Spain. We are not Chile. We defeated the Miami mafia.”

Someone adjusts the pillows. “Why are they holding my hands? I am tough, I am in one piece. It is 1992, and I am before the Congress of Communist Youths. Let me remind them about the vices of prerevolutionary Cuba. They must give me credit. I deserve credit. I remind them: `Today, women are not forced to sell themselves to any man. Those who do it, do it voluntarily. We can say that these women are the most educated and healthy prostitutes in the world.’

‘My father, the old Spaniard, used to say, `It is better to have a live dog than a dead lion.’ Why am I thinking about these things? Who is the dead lion? Who is the live dog? I need to rest . . .

“The crowd is applauding in Revolutionary Square. I’ll raise my hand. Raúl is at my side. Arnaldo and Celia are at my side. We are a happy family. Now all together, loud and clear:

“Socialism or Death! Victory is ours!”

It is too late. Imagine, across Cuba a new reality is taking hold: Death is final. Cuba awaits a new dawn.

Frank Calzon is executive director of the Center for a Free Cuba in Washington, D.C.

El Nuevo Herald| 30 de Octubre del 2006

Por Frank Calzon

El mes de octubre se acerca a su final y Fidel Castro no se acaba de morir. Su régimen está mejor preparado que nunca para afrontar lo impensable: una Cuba sin Fidel. Las redacciones de los periódicos ya han puesto al día obituarios a la espera de una fecha, una hora o, tal vez, un comentario o dos de Gabriel García Márquez o algún otro iluminado.

Mucha gente de fuera de la isla considera que Fidel Castro reposa en su lecho de muerte. Sin embargo, ya tenemos experiencia de la capacidad de reaparición del dictador barbudo. La vida del Comandante se ha caracterizado por una diligente precaución, fortaleza, inteligencia y suerte.

Siempre existirá la posibilidad –pequeña pero posibilidad al fin y al cabo– de que Castro se recupere, contrariando a los enemigos que no cesan en su empeño de llamar la atención sobre sus tremendos crímenes y también a algunos amigos convencidos de que al dictador le ha llegado la hora de decir adiós.

Imagínense: sus familiares se reúnen y el hombre más temido de la historia de la isla se encuentra ahora viejo y enfermo; sedado y conectado a un sinfín de dispositivos médicos con la más alta tecnología.

¿Qué pasará por su mente confusa? El anciano ya no se siente cansado ni viejo. Se imagina descalzo, montado en el potro con el que su padre le obsequió con motivo de su séptimo cumpleaños. Se ve cabalgando por los caminos que atraviesan los bosques cercanos a Birán. En su cabeza semiconsciente se imagina en el aire, volando hacia la canasta de baloncesto del colegio de los jesuitas de Belén, en un remate espectacular. Los pensamientos se amontonan y ahora, se reconoce huyendo rifle en mano, abandonando a sus compañeros a su suerte: a la tortura, la cárcel y la muerte después del fallido ataque a un cuartel militar. No le remuerde la conciencia: hay que salvar al líder para la Revolución, para la Historia.

Entonces la realidad se impone inmisericorde. A su lado permanecen los médicos y algunas personas a quienes es incapaz de reconocer. Tiene frío. Dalia Soto del Valle, su esposa durante más de treinta años, le susurra al oído.

Está confundido: por qué esa mujer lo interrumpe y le besa en la frente cuando él está conversando con Arnaldo, el guajiro duro y audaz. Arnaldo era un muchachito campesino cuando se incorporó al ejército rebelde, arriesgando la vida para defender al líder máximo. Ahora es un prestigioso general tras su regreso de Africa donde demostró ser un brillante líder de los ejércitos expedicionarios cubanos en los campos de batalla. Se ha pasado de la raya; el general ha estado bromeando acerca del Comandante en Jefe y chismorreando sin ningún tipo de discreción que Raúl ha estado apoyando operaciones de narcotráfico. Por esta falta de disciplina, Arnaldo ha sido condenado a muerte. Podría haber condonado la sentencia pero se trata de una cuestión de estado. La gente no comprende la dura carga que supone el liderazgo. Al guajiro se le olvidó a quien le debe todo. Es popular con sus compañeros de armas. Cuanto más popular más peligroso. Ante su falta de respeto y su deslealtad no me temblará la mano, no habrá indulto. El general (el exgeneral) Arnaldo Ochoa morirá.

El Comandante necesita descansar. Tan sólo su hermano Raúl y la desconocida Primera Dama están autorizados a entrar en la habitación.

Hugo Chávez ha llamado. Otra ola de pensamientos inunda su cabeza. “Lo que podría haber sido, haber hecho si hubiera nacido en Venezuela con todas sus reservas de petróleo. Aun sin petróleo le he ganado a los americanos. Si Gorbachov me hubiera escuchado, todavía estaría en el Kremlin y los engreídos de los checos estarían en el lugar que les corresponde. Si no llega a haber sido por la revolución, Cuba no tendría dignidad. Los cubanos son unos desagradecidos pero somos un ejemplo para Bolivia, Corea del Norte, Irán y los progresistas de todo el mundo. No somos Costa Rica, ni España, ni Chile, pero obligamos a la mafia de Miami a morder el polvo de la derrota”.

Alguien entra y coloca las almohadas. ‘¿Por qué me cogen de la mano? Soy un hombre duro. De una sola pieza. Tengo que recordarle a Ramirito que mande a cortar caña a todos esos facinerosos que andan escribiendo en las paredes la dichosa consignita de `el muerto adelante y la gritería atrás’. Conmigo sí que no se juega. Aquí estoy, es 1992, ante el Congreso de las Juventudes Comunistas. Tengo que recordarles las lacras de la Cuba de ayer. Tienen que reconocer los logros revolucionarios, logros conseguidos con mi talento y mi sacrificio: ‘Hoy, les digo, no hay mujeres obligadas a venderse a un hombre. Las que lo hacen, lo hacen por sí solas, en forma voluntaria. Podemos decir que son jineteras sumamente educadas y muy saludables’ ”.

‘¿Qué diría mi padre, el gallego viejo, de todo esto? Recuerdo como me decía: `Mejor tener perro vivo que león muerto’. ¿Por qué estoy pensando en estas cosas? ¿Quién es el león muerto? ¿Quién el perro vivo?… Necesito descansar”.

“La multitud aplaude en la Plaza de la Revolución. Levantaré mi brazo. Raúl está a mi lado. Celia y Arnaldo están a mi lado. Somos una familia feliz. Ahora, todos a la vez, bien alto y claro: ¡Socialismo o muerte! ¡Venceremos!”

Es demasiado tarde. Imagínense que a lo largo y ancho de Cuba una nueva realidad está germinando: la muerte es el final. Pero habrá un nuevo comienzo, un nuevo amanecer.

Frank Calzon es el director ejecutivo del Centro para Cuba Libre en Washington.

October 4th, 2006 | The New York Sun
by Frank Calzon

This is Edward R. Murrow speaking from Vienna. x It’s now nearly 2:30 in the morning and Herr Hitler has not yet arrived. x” Murrow, working for CBS radio in Europe, had just landed in the Austrian capital on a chartered plane from Poland to cover the German army’s entry.

He would go on to London to cover the Battle of Britain from the offices of the venerable state-owned BBC. As Nazi bombs rained down on London, he began ending his broadcasts, “Good night, and good luck.” Indisputably courageous, he brought World War II into the living rooms of millions of Americans.

After the war, he moved to CBS television, bucking his corporate bosses to continue hard-hitting reports on America’s travails through the 1950s. He took his pioneering show, “See it Now,” to another war focusing not on the generals but on the troops for a memorable broadcast “This is Korea, Christmas 1952 x”
Two years later, the program’s report on the bullying tactics of Senator McCarthy, who asserted both the Army and State Department were riddled with communists, led to the Senate’s censure of McCarthy and an end to the “Red Scares.”

Murrow was a journalist of indisputable courage and great love for America and all that it stood for. When Murrow retired from CBS in 1961, he became head of the U.S. Information Agency, overseeing the Voice of America. He died four years later of lung cancer. Of course, all of this happened before many of today’s powerful American journalists were born, and many seem to know very little about him. Likewise, Murrow would very likely be surprised by today’s journalism practices and its insular focus.
The men and women proudly wearing American uniforms in more than one battlefield around the world would probably identify with Murrow’s worldview, his courage in the midst of war, his troubles with the corporate world, and his government service. But the schism between these blue-collar Americans and America’s elites (including the journalistic elites) is real and deep.

The Voice of America survives, a government-funded broadcast service telling the world about America, respected for the professional standards and balance Murrow established. Radio Free Europe broadcasting to the captive people of Eastern Europe under communist rule proved successful in demonstrating the give and take of democracy. Radio and TV Marti continue the tradition with broadcasts to captive Cubans, offering a worldview they otherwise would not hear, and holding to the same professional and objective standards of balance.

In recent weeks, however, journalists contributing stories and commentary to Radio and TV Marti have been under attack in the Miami Herald, accused of being propagandists and unethical because the stations, as American law requires, have paid them for their services. A front-page headline in the Miami Herald screamed,”10 Miami journalists take U.S. pay,” and the story quoted a former reporter for el Nuevo Herald and a journalism professor, who both said that the journalists had a clear conflict of interest.

The Miami Herald and el Nuevo fired two reporters and severed the contractual relationship with a freelance columnist, stating editors did not know about their moonlighting. On tuesday, in a stunning turn of events, the publisher of the papers, Jesus Diaz Jr., acknowledged he made a mistake, reinstated the reporters, and announced his own resignation. In his public statement, Mr. Diaz said he “discovered that over many years, [the papers] conflict-of-interest policies were poorly communicated and inconsistently applied.”

That suggests Mr. Diaz is a man of integrity, willing to right the wrongs in his own house. The other journalists named in the phony expose, however, work for other publications and broadcast stations and may still be caught in the whirlpool. Among them is internationally syndicated columnist Carlos Montaner, who is based in Madrid and learned only via the Internet that the Miami Herald was accusing him of unethical conduct. The Herald continues to publish his column.

Programs for Radio and TV Marti are produced in Miami and easily accessible on the Internet. Who is broadcasting and what’s being said has never been a secret. At one time, an editor of el Nuevo’s opinion page hosted a Radio Marti commentary show. Both the Herald and el Nuevo, whose readers include thousands of Cuban Americans, frequently write about Radio Marti and its programs.
The freelance columnist whose contract was torn up not only wrote about what she was doing at Radio Marti but also about what she was being paid. Not only was it hard to believe the papers’ management did not know, the real question appeared to be: When did they forget?

The controversy poses other important questions: Who is a “professional” journalist? What constitutes a conflict of interest? Does disclosure “cure” a conflict of interest? When and how often are these disclosures supposed to be made? What ties to a community, democratic ideals, and the truth are allowed of “professional” journalists?

In Cuba, “professional” journalists are those paid by Fidel Castro. Independent journalists smuggling stories out of Cuba for publication in Europe or in America are denounced as paid agents of the American government and jailed. This particular Miami imbroglio became even more complicated after it was learned that Cuba’s state-owned television network had commented on the Herald story before it ran in the newspaper and denounced journalists working for Radio Marti in very similar terms.

Mr. Montaner, writing in the Wall Street Journal, commented that “The Miami Herald did more damage in one day to Cuban writers in the democratic opposition than Granma [Castro’s official daily] has done in 40 years.” While el Nuevo Herald quoted from Mr. Montaner’s Journal column, the Miami Herald did not, which leads to another sore point — the difference in how the two papers operate and cover the news. When Cuban-American leaders pushed for a full accounting, their concerns were dismissed by some of the Herald’s editors as “a Cuban thing.”
Even so, immediately after the publication of the original article, both papers began publishing articles and letters to the editor. When the controversy didn’t subside, some readers began contacting McClatchy Company officials, who recently bought the newspapers.

When Murrow became head of the U.S. Information Agency, no one questioned his credentials as a journalist, his courage, or his professional integrity. Why today is it becoming common to attack journalists committed to democracy as propagandists — without regard to the truth of their work, principles, or experience?
There are real abuses, unfairness, and arrogance in the world — some committed in the name of a “free press” that won’t acknowledge its mistakes and is too elitist to address the everyday concerns of working Americans or acknowledge their basic common sense, decency and fairness.

And what about Edward Murrow, the American journalist and former director of the U.S. Information Agency who never betrayed his commitment to journalism, democracy or the American ideal? Hearing the demands of colleagues today who insist that America’s “free press” stand separate and apart from the pursuit of democracy, he must be turning in his grave.

Frank Calzon is Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba, a non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C., that promotes human rights and democracy for Cuba.

The Miami Herald September 19, 2006

By Frank Calzón

“Off with their heads . . . Sentence first, verdict afterward.”
–The Queen of Hearts in Alice in Wonderland.

I should know better than to argue with people who, as they say, buy their ink by the barrel. But the issue of whether it’s ethical for journalists employed by mainstream American newspapers, magazines, television or radio to also write or broadcast for TV and Radio Martí or any other Voice of America program is too important to leave to just two publications. In my view, The Miami Herald and El Nuevo Herald fell short of their own standards of fairness when they fired two staff writers, alleging that the writers hadn’t informed their editors, and then tried to sully the reputations of freelance writers.

Independent journalists ought to be judged on their body of work, not on who’s signing their paychecks. None of the writers and broadcasters singled out were hypocritically providing news, commentary or lifestyle-features for TV and Radio Martí. Their work was consistent with what they were writing and broadcasting elsewhere. Consistency in serving the public interest is the standard that mainstream media has always used in covering news, commenting and taking editorial positions while depending on advertising to cover costs.

Uncensored news

Radio and TV Martí deliver uncensored news to people who could otherwise have little or no access to information. Radio Martí is required to follow the same standards as Voice of America; and like VOA, it has a professional staff of journalists and augments their reports and commentary with work from credible independent journalists employed in the private sector. And, just like Radio Free Europe once did, Martí is keeping the desire for freedom alive for millions enslaved under communism.

Beyond questioning freelancing, independent journalists help maintain the professional character, credibility and fairness of the Radio Martí broadcasts. No one dictates to these freelancers what to write or say. I think that’s a good thing and a very American thing. Radio Martí is not Radio Havana, nor is it a version of Nazi Germany’s or Stalinist Russia’s propaganda machines. The Cuban audience is hearing authentic personal voices and perspectives about what is happening in all corners of the world.
If it has become professionally unethical in this country to oppose tyranny and to support freedom, then the First Amendment has been stood on its head.

It is simply false to suggest that ”real” journalists turn into propaganda hacks if they write or broadcast for government-funded stations. The legendary John Chancellor once served as director of VOA. Well-known journalists from Scripps-Howard newspapers, Time magazine, The Chicago Tribune and other mainstream media have or currently work with Radio and TV Martí. And they are paid for their work.
As to the Radio Martí work of freelancer Olga Connor, whose contract with El Nuevo Herald was voided: She was quoted in a Miami Herald story that listed her salary. Was her contract supposed to be exclusive? Did she think her new bosses knew about her government moonlighting? She has subsequently said her editors did know. Internationally syndicated columnist Carlos Alberto Montaner, who writes from Spain, was also singled out. How do these journalists reclaim their good names and credibility?

Castro standards

Of course, the article got the attention of Fidel Castro. His standard is simple: Anyone who writes truthfully about Cuba is a mercenary, a propagandist ”in the pay” of Washington, a terrorist or a spy. If you are an independent journalist in Cuba, you’re likely to be arrested and imprisoned for violating Law 88. Naturally the Cuban-government news media picked up the initial Miami Herald story and has embellished it. Worldwide, Castro’s supporters have had a field day.

I believe the editors of The Miami Herald when they declare there are inviolate firewalls between news, opinion and advertising and that they can recommend the election of a candidate on the editorial page while fairly reporting on his or her campaign and selling him or her advertising space.

I believe because Miami Herald reporters and editors are people with integrity. They would not sell their principles for a government paycheck. Mainstream media and freelance journalists who accurately report, write and provide fair commentary for TV and Radio Martí deserve the same respect.

Frank Calzon is the Executive Director of the Center for a Free Cuba

The Miami Herald September 1st, 2006

By Frank Calzón

From radical Islam to a nuclear-armed North Korea, our way of life faces many threats at the moment. But a threat many people ignore is the one closest geographically, the one from Cuba. Would Fidel Castro’s death diminish this danger? Not likely — not as long as his brother Raúl stayed in power.

The Castros’ Cuba, let’s not forget, became an eager aircraft carrier to Soviet nuclear weapons in the early 1960s, sparking the Cuban missile crisis. Far from wanting to defuse the crisis, Castro took great umbrage when Nikita Khrushchev withdrew those weapons under threat of nuclear annihilation. Nobody should be under any illusions about what the Castros would be capable of today. They would willingly turn their island over to Hezbollah, Hamas, Hugo Chávez, Kim Jong-Il or anyone else who bore hostility to the United States. As in 1961, they would not care if this put Cuba’s 11 million people at risk — so long as many more Americans were also imperiled.
Fidel Castro’s death would hardly change the equation. Raúl Castro’s commitment to anti-Americanism already was publicly known in the early 1950s. If anything, it is of older vintage than his brother’s.

The U.S. government has long recognized the threat Castro’s Cuba represents. Cuba’s regime is classified as a rogue state by the State Department, and is on its State Sponsors of Terrorism list.

This classification has irked the Castros, and they have repeatedly demanded that Havana be removed from this list. We know how much being called a rogue regime has upset Havana, because the Castros have put their top-of-the-line intelligence services to work on removing Cuba from the list. Exhibit A is Ana Belen Montes, a high-ranking Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who insisted for years that Havana was not a threat. At one point, commenting on a report that she had helped prepare, Castro had the audacity to say that for the first time, the Pentagon was right about Cuba.

Montes was subsequently found to be a spy for the Castros. She was indicted in Washington, tried and sentenced to 25 years in prison. She confessed she had been a spy for Cuban intelligence.

Now that his older brother has taken ill, much of the discussion about U.S. Cuba policy reflects how little is known about the 75-years-young Raúl Castro. Beyond the obvious — that Raúl has been in the shadow of his older brother all his life, and that his appointment as Cuba’s provisional president has nothing to do with his charisma or his popularity — history shows the following: While Fidel was earning a law degree, joining gangster groups in the 1940s and becoming active in a reformist and anti-Communist political party, Raúl was an active Communist who had already thrown his lot with the Soviet Union.

From early on he showed a cruel streak. In 1956, before departing from Mexico on the expedition that rekindled the insurrection, Raúl personally executed a fellow Cuban accused of being a Batista spy.

Later, in 1957 as a harbinger of things to come, 28 U.S. Navy and Marine personnel were kidnapped while riding in a bus in Oriente province. The kidnappers were led by Raúl Castro. The New York Times reported that the American consul had to get ”in contact with the rebel band” to win their release.

Romanian Lt. Gen. Ion Mihai Pacepa, the highest ranking Soviet bloc official ever to defect, has said that when he visited Havana in 1973 ”Raúl gave [him] a tour of a huge factory manufacturing double-walled suitcases and other concealment devices for secretly transporting arms and explosives for terrorist purposes.” Pacepa says he was present when the Castro brothers agreed on ”a bilateral drug venture” with Romanian dictator Nicolae Ceausescu: a more-effective way to ”do damage to imperialism than nuclear weapons.” Not knowing this background, many people are saying that ”Raúl is no Fidel,” suggesting that with the elder Castro in his sickbed, this is the time to make concessions to Havana. It’s not just the Castros’ paid agents who advocate a softening of the U.S. government’s policy toward this heinous dictatorship. Many well-intended people would like to see the United States invest in Cuba, or even send tourists there. But nobody should be under any illusion: Cuba under Raúl Castro, even more than under his brother, would pose a clear and present danger to the U.S. homeland.

Frank Calzon is executive director of Center for a Free Cuba.