Government and Media Fantasies About Cuban Politics

Matt Peppe

The historic meeting between President Barack Obama and President Raúl Castro of Cuba at the Summit of the Americas in Panama over the weekend could be interpreted as a steppingstone toward the end of U.S. subversion and economic warfare relentlessly carried out since the success of the Cuban revolution 55 years ago. But it is questionable whether President Obama intends to transform relations, treating the government of Cuba as a sovereign equal and recognizing their right to choose different political and economic models, or merely to continue the same decades-old policy with a more palatable sales pitch – the way he has done with drones and extrajudicial surveillance. U.S. media, however, appear to have fully embraced the propaganda line that Washington is acting in the best interests of the Cuban people to liberate them from political repression. The New York Times weighed in the day before the Summit by claiming that most Cubans identify not with the sociopolitical goals advanced by their country’s government, but rather with those supported by Washington.

In an editorial titled “Cuban Expectations in a New Era” (4/7/2015), the New York Times advances the proposition that engagement between the two governments will lead to Cuba’s integration (at least partially) into the global capitalist economy. This in turn will create increased financial prosperity as Cuba grows its private sector and turns away from the failed model the government has imposed since the start of the revolution.

The New York Times portrays the Cuban government as intransigent, stubbornly holding its citizens back from the inevitable progress that would result from aligning itself with Washington. The Times claims that the Cuban government maintains a “historically tight grip on Cuban society.”

They insinuate there is a Cuban version of the U.S.’s political police, the FBI, who for decades spied on nonviolent activists representing African Americans, Puerto Rican nationalists, the anti-war movement, animal rights and environmental groups to prevent social change through political action. Many of the activists illegally targeted by the FBI’s COINTELPRO program still remain incarcerated as political prisoners. But the Times doesn’t mention any such Cuban equivalent, likely because none exists.

The responsibility for Cuba’s financial woes is placed squarely on the country’s government. The Times claims “the Obama administration’s gamble on engaging with Cuba has made it increasingly hard for [Cuba's] leaders to blame their economic problems and isolation on the United States.”

They fail to mention that the embargo against Cuba cost the country $3.9 billion in foreign trade last year, bringing the inflation-adjusted total to $1.1 trillion. The embargo is still directly harming the Cuban economy and public health sector. The administrative measures implemented by Obama will provide, at most, minor relief. Extraterritorial provisions of the Helms-Burton Act that prevent Cuba from trading with third countries remain firmly in place. But the Times seems to believe the Cuban government is doing nothing more than making excuses when they complain about the devastating affects of the embargo on their economy and their population.

In her study “Unexpected Cuba,” economist Emily Morris rejects the argument that Cuba’s leaders have damaged their country’s economic performance and put its social progress at risk by failing to adopt capitalist reforms like privatization and liberalization.

“The problem with this account is that reality has conspicuously failed to comply with its predictions,” Morris writes. “Although Cuba faced exceptionally severe conditions – it suffered the worst exogenous shock of any of the Soviet-bloc members and, thanks to the long-standing US trade embargo, has confronted a uniquely hostile international environment – its economy has performed in line with the other ex-Comecon countries, ranking thirteenth out of the 27 for which the World Bank has full data.”

The New York Times argues that the Cuban dissidents attending sideline events at the Panama Summit deserve to have regional leaders “amplify their voices.” They claim that such dissidents “have struggled for years to be heard in their own country, where those critical of the Communist system have faced repression.”

There is no evidence presented that the dissidents have struggled in Cuba because they have been repressed, rather than having struggled because most of the population simply does not agree with their ideas or sympathize with them.

In a presumptuous attempt to delegitimize the Cuban government, the Times claims it is actually the dissident contra-revolution that represents the majority of the Cuban people: “The government will have to reckon with the fact that many of the dissidents’ aspirations are shared by most Cubans.”

Again, there is no evidence that this is actually the case anywhere other than in Washington’s fantasies. The dissidents’ aspirations are not even stated. One assumes this refers to the objective of repealing socialism and instituting capitalism, also the official policy of the U.S. government. Supporting changes to Cuba’s economy within the socialist structure is not a dissident position. Such changes and improvements are proposed and debated at all levels of Cuban politics, and have been openly embraced by Raúl Castro since he assumed the Presidency.

That the majority of the Cuban people share the dissidents’ political views is a bold claim. People familiar with Cuba have reached the opposite conclusion. Victor Rodriguez, a professor in the Ethnic Studies department of California State University Long Beach, recently returned from a visit to Cuba and had a different outlook.

“I spoke with at least 50 Cubans of all ages and walks of life,” he said. “Themes were that sovereignty, health care, and education are non-negotiable.” Rodriguez said that Cubans did have complaints about their system, with many stressing the need for higher salaries.

But the three areas he cites as resoundingly popular are the most basic hallmarks of the revolution. If Cuba were to abandon its socialist economic system – either willingly or under pressure from the United States – these would be the first areas to be sacrificed on the neoliberal altar. Dozens of countries in the global South from Africa, Latin America to Asia that now find themselves in the vice grip of suffocating debt can surely attest to this fact.

It is worth examining who are the voices that the New York Times claim deserve to be amplified. Among the “dissidents” are Guillermo Fariñas and Manuel Cuesta Morúa. Fariñas had fought in Angola against the racist South African apartheid regime and had supported Cuba’s revolutionary movement until a sudden change, observes Salim Lamrani, a French professor who specializes in Cuba-USA relations.

“It was only in 2003 that Fariñas made a 180 degree ideological switch and turned his back on the ideas he had defended in years past,” Lamrani writes. Contrary to representation in Western media, Fariñas had been sentenced to prison for crimes such as assaulting a woman as well as an old man who had to have his spleen removed because of his injuries. Lamrani notes that Fariñas was admittedly financed by the US Interests Section in Havana. Perhaps not coincidentally, Fariñas became an outspoken critic of the Castro regime. Yet he was still permitted to speak freely with foreign media. His decision to outspokenly express his political views, which happen to coincide with those of the interests that finance him, has rewarded him handsomely.

“Guillermo Fariñas has chosen, as have those Cuban dissidents sensationalized by the western press, to live off his dissident activities, which offer undeniable financial opportunities and a standard of living much higher than other Cubans living in a context marked by economic difficulties and material scarcity,” Lamrani writes.

Cuesta Morúa is likewise a dissident who considers the Cuban revolution an abject failure, and who downplays any U.S. responsibility for the economic conditions Cuba faces.

According to Lamrani, “Manuel Cuesta Morúa, who resides in Cuba and benefits from all the advantages of the system of social protection of the country, is a dissident linked to U.S. power through the National Endowment for Democracy, a screen office of the CIA that contributes financially to the development of the activities of the opposition to the government of Havana.”

Unlike dissidents in the United States, who cannot start a political organization or journalistic enterprise without concerning themselves with how it will impact their ability to pay for health care, a mortgage, food for their family, and education, dissidents in Cuba do not have any of these worries. They enjoy a robust safety net that covers every single citizen, regardless of their view of the Cuban political system.

Many Cubans in attendance at the Summit in Panama had a different view of the dissidents than that espoused by the New York Times. They referred to the dissidents as mercenaries because of their financial links to a hostile foreign regime and coziness with anti-Castro exiles such as Luis Posada Carriles, the “Cuban bin Laden,” who has been implicated in numerous terrorist activities including the downing of a civilian airplane and a string of hotel bombings in Havana.

The Cuban Web site Juventud Rebelde reported that the Cuban delegation, which represents more than 2,000 associations and Non-Governmental Organizations from the island, denounced the presence of people who are paid by interests seeking to destabilize Cuban society and the Cuban government.

Liaena Hernandez Martinez, of the National Committee of the Federation of Cuban Women, which represents more than 4 million Cubans said that: “For the Cuba dignified and sovereign that has resisted more than five decades of blockade it is inadmissible that people are here of such low moral character.”

The Times predictably aligns itself on the side of the U.S. government regarding their opinion of the true political aspirations of Cuban people. The idea that the U.S. is a disinterested observer nudging the Cuban government in the direction of greater democracy and human rights is nothing but pure propaganda, contradicted by more than half a century of history. The U.S. has always been the aggressor against Cuba, coercing it to become a neo-colony that could be exploited by the U.S. military and corporate interests. This was true from the time the U.S. forced Cuba to implement Platt amendment that granted the Americans control of Guantanamo Bay until the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista was ousted in 1959.

It should be no surprise that the U.S. government and corporations like the New York Times still presumptuously attempt to delegitimize the Cuban revolution and pretend that Cuban politics are best understood and articulated by those either outside Cuba or in their service as paid agents. The notion that a population can create a socioeconomic system representing the will of its people that starkly rejects the Washington Consensus is simply unthinkable. They are forced to pretend that an opposition manufactured and financed from abroad is representative of the population as a whole. It may take another 55 years to understand this is simply not the case.

Drone Victims Take Germany to Court

David Swanson

Andreas Schüller is an attorney on the staff of the European Center for Constitutional and Human Rights. He is the lead attorney on a suit being brought by ECCHR and Reprieve against the German government on behalf of three Yemeni survivors of a U.S. drone strike. The case will be heard May 27th in Cologne.

Their suit argues that it is illegal under German law for the German government to allow the U.S. air base at Ramstein to be used for drone murders abroad. The suit comes after the passage of a resolution in the European Parliament in February 2014 urging European nations to “oppose and ban the practice of extrajudicial targeted killings” and to “ensure that the Member States, in conformity with their legal obligations, do not perpetrate unlawful targeted killings or facilitate such killings by other states.”

I’ve always thought of drone murders as illegal under the laws of the countries where the murders happen, as well as under the UN Charter and the Kellogg Briand Pact. I asked Schüller: Is your suit seeking prosecution for murder where (or in one of the places where) the act is committed from a distance?

“The suit,” he replied, “is based on constitutional rights in Germany and thus not seeking prosecution, but measures by the German administration to stop the use of German territory for illegal actions by the U.S. in Yemen.” The central claim, he said, is that the U.S. air base at Ramstein is involved in drone operations, by transmitting data from and to drones through a satellite relay station as well as transatlantic fiber cables. The suit seeks to stop use of the air base’s air operations center for analysis of surveillance images sent by drones as part of combat drone missions.

How, I asked, does this differ from the recent indictment of a former CIA station chief in Pakistan?

“The Pakistani case,” Schüller said, “deals with drone strikes in the country where they take place in massive numbers and with high numbers of killed civilians. It’s about prosecuting individuals responsible for the strikes set up. Our suit concerns the preemptive protection of our clients that are living in an area with continuing drone operations as well as technical and targeting aspects in drone operations and state collaboration.”

In the United States it’s common for lawyers to claim that murder is legal if it’s part of a war, and to defer to the warmakers to tell them if something is part of a war or not; does it matter in your case whether the act was part of a war?

“It is important to prove that the U.S. practice in conducting drone strikes is illegal in several aspects. On the one hand, strikes in Yemen are conducted outside an armed conflict and thus infringe the right to life without any justification. In line with a legal opinion by the German Federal Prosecutor’s Office we don’t consider the U.S. to be in a global armed conflict against Al-Qaida and associate forces. Even if there would be the case of an armed conflict, the targeting practice by the U.S. is too broad and includes a large number of targets that do not fall under the category of legitimate military targets in an armed conflict. Attacks against those targets are thus illegal, even in armed conflict.”

Is Germany obliged by the European Parliament to end drone murders from its soil? (And does this apply to every EU member country?) And by the German Constitution?

“Politically, the European Parliament made a strong statement against the illegal and expanded use of drone strikes. All EU member states are also bound by laws, such as the European Convention of Human Rights, to respect and protect the right to life. A similar provision is part of the German constitution.”

Briefly what is the story of the victims in your case?

“On August 29, 2012, five rockets fired by U.S. drones struck the village of Khashamir in eastern Yemen. The extended family of our clients had gathered in the village to celebrate a wedding. Two members of the family were killed in the strike. Other family members were left with ongoing trauma. The family members killed were outspoken critics of AQAP and active in countering their influence in the region through speeches and social activities.”

What do you hope to prove?

“It’s about the use of German territory for illegal drone operations and the need for European governments to take a stronger legal and political position against the continuing US practice.”

What is the timing?

“The lawsuit has been filed in October 2014 with the administrative court in Cologne. In the end of May 2015 an oral hearing will take place. Further court session as well as rendering of a judgment are not foreseeable, as well as appeals procedures.”

What could result if you succeed?

“The result could be that the German government must take a stronger position towards the U.S. government to stop the use of the U.S. airbase in Ramstein for drone operations, including activities to rebuild the relay station or the air operations center.”

Any benefit for this movement that I just wrote about?

“In Europe, we need to form a transborder activists network addressing and opposing the use of European allies’ soil for drone operations. So the German case will definitely be of interest for Italy and other countries in Europe.”

What can people do to help?

“The ultimate political goal is to change the U.S. practice of drone strikes and to conduct them according to human rights standards. People must continue to put pressure on governments worldwide to take a clear position on the legal boundaries of drone strikes as well as the long-term consequences in international relations if such an illegal practice continues in many different places worldwide.”

Well let’s hope the ultimate goal is not murders by flying robots that meet “human rights standards” whatever in the world those might be! But let’s help advance this effort to hold the German government to a higher standard than the abysmal one modeled by the United States.

A key witness in court will be former U.S. drone pilot Brandon Bryant. If you know of any other drone pilots willing to speak about what they’ve done, please let me know.

Syriza Against the Machine

Tom Vouloumanos

The Syriza lead Greek government, elected on January 25, 2015, has been at the receiving end of a major economic and media assault.  It began on February 4, 2015 when the European Central Bank (ECB) cut off the main source of financing of Greek banks and also threatened to cut off the only other source, the Emergency Liquidity Assistance.  Greece was under threat of a banking collapse.  The usual scare tactics of the Greek Media and conservative New Democracy (ND) party prompted Greeks to start pulling money out of their accounts out of fear of seeing their savings vanish thereby further draining the baking system of capital.  The then Troika (EU, ECB, IMF) figured the Greek government would simply capitulate and continue the austerity memorandum, business as usual. The opposition ND was waiting on the side lines for the Tsipras government to collapse, so it could come back into power after this “Left parenthesis” and show Greeks and Europeans that there really is no alternative.  But this did not happen; Syriza held its ground.  Facing a euro crisis on February 28th, Greece and its “partners” reached a vague 4-month bridge compromise on February 20, 2015.  The deal was to keep money flowing into the Greek banking system until a new arrangement is agreed upon sometime in June.   Greece had to present a list of reforms to the European creditors, which Finance Minister Yannis Varoufakis did and which were approved.  Remaining issues were left to be negotiated in a month, by April 20th and the next tranche of IMF money would be released, allowing the Greek economy to function and Syriza to go about its business of governing.

Yet, this was not the case.

It was obvious that the European establishment was not happy with the election of Syriza and it wanted to nib this problem in the bud before other countries, like Spain, Ireland, Portugal, or Italy get any ideas or even worse, before a European wide movement takes shape against the neo-liberal structure of the EU and begins discussing and agitating for alternatives.   Unlike what the citizens of Europe may have thought they were getting into, the EU is not a democratic confederation of peoples, but an economic space completely under the control of the European establishment namely, the Financial and Corporate elite, the traditional European oligarchs, the neo-liberal politicians (no matter what meaningless party label they use) and unelected technocrats in their service. Of course, the German state is the hegemon of this establishment, but its interests more or less converge with the interests of the European ruling class.  This is the true architecture of the European Union.  Syriza is a disturbance to this order that must be quashed.  In order to fully appreciate the current impasse between Syriza and its creditors, it must be seen outside the narrow nationalist paradigm of Germans vs Greeks and be seen for what it truly is, a class war.

The German state is simply the most powerful guarantor of the privileges of this European establishment, after the US of course.  As such, the German establishment convinced large sectors of the German working class that they have common interests and that they are bailing out their southern European neighbors who are too lazy, too corrupt or too disorganized to run a modern successful economy.  The European Media made sure that simple facts were not known to the public of the northern European states. They were not told that the loans to Greece were not for bailing out Greeks but for bailing out European banks, as these loans simply financed debt repayments.  With each loan, the debt increased further, forcing more loans on condition that the country privatizes its resources, destroys its social state, throws people into unemployment and poverty.  All of which shrink the economy decreasing the country’s ability to service its debt and pay its creditors, forcing it to borrow even more conditional bailout money, further increasing its debt and accelerating austerity and so on and so forth; a vicious cycle that is leading to the third worldization of the European periphery countries.

This was the EU against which Syriza campaigned and won.

But make no mistake, Syriza does not want to leave the Eurozone, it was elected on a clear anti-austerity mandate after 5 long years of Greek economic depression unprecedented in times of peace.  Nevertheless, Syriza has been clear that it wants another Europe, a democratic Europe, in which people and not financial institutions are in the drivers’ seat.  It has made no secret of this and supports all other European political forces who want a democratic, solidaristic, social, sustainable, peoples’ Europe.  It is this that the European establishment finds unacceptable, not whether its current budget surplus will be 1.5% or 3%. It is precedents that the European establishment is worried about.  If Syriza succeeds what will the other systemic governments of the European periphery say to their own constituents.  There was supposed to be no other alternative.  This is especially true for Spain where a conservative government is facing the rise of Syriza’s ally, Podemos.  Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras announced in parliament that the Spanish Prime Minister was working hard behind the scenes to torpedo any type of non-austerity arrangement.

In an interview on a popular TV political talk show, Ston Eniko hosted by Nikos Hatzinikolaou, Panos Kammenos, leader of Syriza’s junior coalition partner, Anel (Independent Greeks) and Defense Minister, admitted that “they don’t want an agreement!”  Kammenos explained that Varoufakis meets with European officials, proposes and negotiates a series of reforms, the officials agree, then three days later 25 more points of discussion are emailed to the Greek government. This has been the modus operandi of the European officials since the February 20, 2015 truce.  No matter how many reforms Varoufakis presents to these officials, they are unacceptable as they are not austerity reforms.  The Greek government has been working hard showing that it can increase revenue by tackling corruption, tax evasion and off shore accounts.  It has provided clear number crunching evidence that its measures would be far more efficient for increasing government revenue than privatizations, pension cuts and other austerity measures which are destroying the Greek economy and torturing the population in the midst of an EU engineered humanitarian crisis.  Greece has been coming to the table with viable plan, after viable plan thinking it would get sensible responses but it has realized that the goal of the European establishment is to make the Government of the Left bend and follow orders.  The political plan is austerity; it has nothing to do with economic data, it has everything to do with who wields economic power.  Syriza and its junior partner’s unpardonable sin is that they have stood up to this establishment.

It is precisely for this reason, that Left activists in and outside of Europe need to pay attention to and build solidarity with the Greek government.  The success of Syriza will be the first crack in the totalitarian neo-liberal hegemony of the North Atlantic region.  The European establishment fully understands this and Left activists around the world need to as well.

This is why the European institutions are deliberately hurting the Greek economy; Greece is facing major cash flow problems as it has yet to receive a single Euro and needs to continuously make debt repayments. It made another payment to the IMF on April 9, 2015 of 450 million Euros, but more on that later.  This cash flow crisis is making it difficult for the Greek government to meet its payroll, provide pensions, education, health care etc.  In essence, Syriza’s capacity to govern is being seriously and probably illegally undermined (based on European multilateral agreements).

No one needs to wonder whether or not the Greek elite have been working hand in hand with the European establishment.  They risk losing a lot.  Syriza plans to audit the recent bailout agreements in order to find out if there was any wrongdoing in which politicians or big business leaders benefited from the destruction of the Greek economy.  Syriza’s reform list includes measures from making the tax system more just to stamping out tax evasion and offshore accounts.  These reforms are a direct affront against Greek oligarchs.  Syriza is preparing to overhaul the state apparatus and tackle the nexus between the establishment parties, the media, the state bureaucracy and large private interests.  But like the European establishment, the Greek establishment will not easily give up.

As such, they are looking to destabilize this government so as to break it up.  First they tried to build a wedge between Syriza and its coalition partner Anel.  The media was trying to paint Anel as a far right party, Syriza MP Costa Lapavitsas wrote in an article that Anel “is a nationalist party that speaks for broad sections of grassroots conservatism, and they have consistently opposed the disastrous policies of austerity. Indeed, with regard to Greece’s national debt, its position might even be considered to the left of Syriza.”  Now, the media is making it seem that Syriza is in internal chaos.  Syriza is a multi-tendency Left party with internally recognized factions that speak their mind freely.  Debates are brought to plenums, votes are taken and positions are announced.  The media has been trying to build a wedge between the current leadership and the Left Platform faction, led by government Minister Panagiotis Lafazanis. In fact, the differences between the current leadership and the Left Platform are mainly strategic not ideological.  The president of the European Parliament, Martin Schulz went so far as saying that Syriza should expel its more radical Left flank, and form a new government with the more responsible systemic centrist parties, To Potami (a media creation masquerading a citizens’ movement) and even the once powerful Pasok now reduced to a rump.  This was an unprecedented intervention of a European official into the internal affairs of a member state.  No one can doubt, that the European establishment sees Greece as a debt colony and that the pro-establishment parties like ND, Pasok and To Potami see themselves as vassals.

Yet, the destabilization tactics do not stop there.

When Syriza came to power, it immediately got rid of the barricades that surrounded the Parliament building and announced that it was going to close down the type C jails where many anarchists are held as well as scrap the draconian anti-terror laws.  Syriza activists were involved in many of the street demonstrations of the last years that were met with riot squads, teargas and police brutality.  Nevertheless, there have been odd occupations in recent weeks by small groups of anti-authoritarian activists of Syriza’s headquarters and the offices of the left alternative radio station it owns, Sto Kokkino, with demands that Syriza move on issues it already has announced it will move on.  Moreover, Sto Kokkino has been a leading voice in reporting state repression against anarchists, left activists and migrants.  When a small group of anarchists raised banners on the steps of parliament, the Syriza Parliamentary President, Zoe Konstantopoulos, in the face of inflammatory calls by the opposition to crack down on the “terrorists”, refused to send in the riot police and defended the right of citizens to protest and dissent.  So why is Syriza being targeted?  It has long been known that many of the most violent elements in protests and demonstrations, known as Koukoulofori (hooded ones) have been agents provocateurs on the payroll of the riot squads, called MAT for  Units for the Reinstatement of Control, a group that Syriza plans to dissolve.  The presence of Nazis, fascists and right wing fanatics in the police force has been a reality in Greece, since the collaborationists were absorbed into the para-state apparatus after the German retreat in WWII in order to hunt down the Left wing guerrillas that liberated the country.  Some of these para-state elements, have infiltrated many radical left and anarchist groups, one may suspect that these last actions have been encouraged and prodded by reactionary elements within the police who are worried about Syriza’s commitment to purge the Nazi and fascist presence within the Greek gendarmerie (in the 2014 euro-elections, 50% of police officers voted for Golden Dawn).

Syriza also faces a potential threat within the Greek state bureaucracy. In a system of rampant nepotism and clientelism, many in the higher echelons of the state apparatus, have been placed there by the formerly big but still establishment parties, ND and Pasok.  Their loyalties lie with the power brokers, the Greek and European establishment.  Syriza’s more radical proposals of making the state more open, transparent and participatory may face pushback and even sabotage from this sector.  With the possibility of many inconvenient truths coming out of audits of the bailout agreements since 2010, in addition to breaking up the cartel between state technocrats, politicians and private interests, many in the state hierarchy may want to see this government go.  In such an antagonistic environment, certain ministries would need to rely more on the people they brought in rather than on the state functionaries. Forcing the small team of political attaches to take on greater loads of work from fear of leaks and sabotage from a potential internal enemy.

The Syriza government faces great adversity of a European and Greek economic, political and technocratic machinery that is firmly in the hands of a powerful establishment. This is what’s going in Greece.

But Syriza does have a card up its sleeve, the Greek and European people.

Syriza needs to explain its strategy and its situation in clear terms so that ordinary Greeks and Europeans can fully understand the situation; this is the only way to build solidarity and to deepen support.  The European establishment has been shocked at Syriza’s resolve.  They are not used someone not following orders.  Syriza was shocked at how nonsensical the demands of European officials have been.  Their strategy should not be to add more water to their red wine, but to move further to the left, they need to meet intransigence with firmer determination.  This is the only road to deepen support.  Each time Syriza has shown firmness and courage their polls have shot up dramatically, and people took to the streets to tell their government not to back down.  Popular support in Greece may inspire popular support in other cities in Europe and elsewhere where people are fighting the same neo-liberal class assault. International solidarity will be a determining factor as there is already solidarity between the powerful of Europe against a government of the Radical Left.

So what will Syriza do in its fight against the machine?

The question keeps coming up: will Syriza leave the euro?  Syriza does not want to leave the euro and in fact, does not want this conversation to be about the euro, it wants it to be about what kind of Europe do we want: a Europe in which economic institutions are there to service people or a Europe in which people are there to service economic institutions?  The debate on the euro is a distraction to this more fundamental question.  Syriza believes that economic institutions should be under the control of people.  This is anathema to the European establishment.

Therefore, Syriza, being the only party of the Left and the only non-systemic party to head a European government, needs to navigate a very delicate path and it seems that it is doing just that.  To the outcry of the European “partners” and officials, Tsipras was in Russia on April 8th (a day before the IMF debt payment) and met with Putin.  Tsipras explained that Greece was not seeking a Russian solution, but that it is a sovereign state and not a debt colony with the right to make its own economic agreements all the while respecting the rules of the multilateral agreements it is party to.   Syriza has been doing the same with China, the Middle-East, Latin America and even the US.  It is seeking to find short financial supplements to provide a little breathing space in the tight box its “partners” have placed it in.

There was an underlying message to meeting with Putin the day before the IMF payments were due.  The IMF of course, is under US authority. By going to Russia and signing various economic and social cooperation projects Greece simply reminded the US and Europe of its geostrategic significance.  It also met its payment to the US showing the real Global power that it will play nice.  Syriza is trying to position itself in such a way as to remind its NATO friends that kicking it out of the Eurozone is not in the geostrategic interest of the US.

Syriza is part of a long tradition in the Greek Left, that has learned from its history not to hope for a Russian savior.  Russia has its own imperial interests.  The nonagenarian Syriza MEP, Manolis Glezos, lived through the Greek Civil War, where partisans waited in the mountains for Soviet planes to come to their rescue.  Of course, such planes never came.  Moreover, Syriza is not trying to replace one hegemon for another, it is trying to expand its cage, inspiring others to follow suit.  Needless to say, if Greece is brought to the precipice of a Grexit, one could assume that the US will step in and avoid losing an important line of communication to the Middle-East for what is trivial amounts of money by IMF and ECB standards.  There already has been some hints from the US and the IMF that Greece needs some expansionary policies, therefore, one can guess that Obama may finally broker an agreement.  Syriza knows this and this is why it will continue paying the IMF.  As for its European creditors, well, it depends.

If the EU and ECB creditors continue to tighten the noose around Greece’s neck and demand that the Greece continue to bleed its population and sell off its property and resources, refusing sensible but non-recessionary economic reform plans, and holding out on cash flow until it surrenders, then the Greek government will simply hold out on paying back its debt repayments to the European creditors and instead meet its payroll, education, health and other requirements.  Kammenos said as much on that same talk show.   Syriza’s argument is that there is no mechanism to kick Greece out of the euro and if the European institutions consider Greek holding back on payments until it receives its next tranche of loans as a default well then a bankruptcy within the euro would mean that the entire debt Greece owes will be written off.  The Syriza lead government has been able to meet its debt payment requirements without any new loans all the while continuing to pay for its internal requirements.  This of course, is no way to live as the state is in a socially dire situation but there is no reason to make things even worse with more austerity measures.

A clash between the Greek government and the European establishment is drawing nearer. Syriza’s battle against neo-liberal hegemony deserves our support and solidarity.

Criminalizing Dissent and Attacking Freedom of Expression in India

Colin Todhunter

Before being voted out of office last year, India’s Congress-led United Progressive Alliance administration sanctioned open-field trials of GM food crops in India and Monsanto’s share prices rocketed. This decision prompted Rajesh Krishnan of the Coalition for a GM Free India to state that the government was against the interest of citizens, farmers and the welfare of the nation. He went on to state that the government had decided to work hand in glove with the multinational GM seed industry that stood to gain immensely from the open field trails. Since then, the Modi-led administration has continued the policy to drive GMOs into India.

Writing in The Hindu last year, Aruna Rodrigues noted that the Technical Expert Committee (TEC) Final Report (FR) is the fourth official report exposing the lack of integrity, independence and scientific expertise in assessing GMO risk (see here). The four reports are: The ‘Jairam Ramesh Report’ of February 2010, imposing an indefinite moratorium on Bt Brinjal, overturning the apex Regulator’s approval to commercialise it; the Sopory Committee Report (August 2012); the Parliamentary Standing Committee (PSC) Report on GM crops (August 2012) and the TEC Final Report (June-July 2013).

The TEC recommended an indefinite moratorium on the field trials of GM crops until the government devised a proper regulatory and safety mechanism. No such mechanism exists, but open field trials are being given the go ahead, regardless of a history of blatant violations of biosafety norms, hasty approvals, a lack of monitoring abilities, general apathy towards the hazards of contamination and a lack of institutional oversight mechanisms (see this).

Despite this, the BJP-ruled Maharashtra government recently granted ‘no-objection certificates’ for GM open-field trials of rice, chickpeas maize, brinjal and cotton. Some regard this as a game changer in the push to get GM crops into India. (Punjab, Haryana, Delhi and Andhra Pradesh have given NOCs for field trials of some biotech crops, while states like Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan have banned such research activities.)

Aruna Rodrigues argues there is increasing evidence that: GMOs pose health and environment risks; GM yields are significantly lower than yields from non-GM crops; and pesticide use, instead of coming down, has gone up exponentially. Rodrigues moreover argued that in India, notwithstanding the hype of the industry, the regulators and the Ministry of Agriculture (MoA), Bt cotton yield is leveling off to levels barely higher than they were before the introduction of Bt.

In her piece in The Hindu, she stated:

“The IAASTD was the work of over 400 scientists and took four years to complete. It was twice peer reviewed. The report states we must look to small-holder, traditional farming (not GMOs) to deliver food security in third world countries through agri-ecological systems which are sustainable. Governments must invest in these systems. This is the clear evidence.”

The MoA strongly opposed the TEC Committee’s report. This, according to Rodrigues, was to be expected given the conflict of interests:

“The Indian Council of Agriculture Research (ICAR) promotes public-private-partnerships with the biotechnology industry. It does this with the active backing of the Ministry of Science and Technology. The MoA has handed Monsanto and the industry access to our agri-research public institutions placing them in a position to seriously influence agri-policy in India. You cannot have a conflict of interest larger or more alarming than this one. Today, Monsanto decides which Bt cotton hybrids are planted and where. Monsanto owns over 90 per cent of planted cotton seed, all of it Bt cotton.”

All the other staggering scams that have rocked the nation have the possibility of recovery and reversal, but, as Rodrigues argues, the GM scam will be of a scale hitherto unknown:

“We have had the National Academies of Science give a clean chit of biosafety to GM crops – doing that by using paragraphs lifted wholesale from the industry’s own literature! Likewise, ministers who know nothing about the risks of GMOs have similarly sung the virtues of Bt Brinjal and its safety to an erstwhile Minister of Health. They have used, literally, “cut & paste” evidence from the biotech lobby’s “puff” material. Are these officials then, “un-caged corporate parrots?”

Arun Shrivastava notes that as early as 2003, when the first ever Bt cotton crop was harvested in Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra, Gene Campaign evaluated the performance of Bt Cotton. These studies proved that GE seeds don’t increase yield. He goes on to note that the impleadment to ban GMOs was backed by 6.5 million farmers through their respective associations. It was admitted by the Supreme Court in April 2007 and contains a long list of hard scientific evidence.

Shrivastava states that the Standing Committee on Agriculture in Parliament unanimously and unequivocally concluded that GE seeds and foods are dangerous to human, animal and environmental health and directed the Government of Manmohan Singh to ban GMOs. The 400-page report was submitted to Parliament in October 2012.

Officials in India are working closely with global biotech companies to force GMOs into fields and onto the public, despite evidence pertaining to the deleterious impacts of GMOs on various levels (for example, see this, this and this). These companies are in fact playing a key role in determining the overall development agenda for India (see this, this and this).

Despite the evidence pertaining to the risks and efficacy of GMOs, organisations and activists opposing such crops are being singled out for putting a break on development and growth and for being in the pocket of foreign interests.

An Intelligence Bureau (IB) report, ‘Impact of NGOs on Development’, was leaked in June of last year and had a special section on GMOs. It was clearly supportive of the introduction of GM crops into India. The IB said foreign NGOs and their Indian arms were serving as tools to advance Western foreign policy interests in various areas, of which GMOs comprise one aspect.

Aruna Rodrigues, Vandana Shiva and Kavitha Kuruganti, who were all mentioned in the report, in their joint statement noted the report’s hypocrisy by saying that the IB was conspiring with global corporate interests to haemorrhage India’s agricultural economy. The report even quoted Dr Ronald Herring of Cornell University, who is a known promoter of genetically-modified organisms and Monsanto’s monopoly.

Speaking to The Statesman newspaper in India, Aruna Rodrigues said:

“Here is a real foreign hand that informs the IB report. Cornell University, where Dr Herring works, was one of the main forces, along with USAID and Monsanto, behind the making of Bt brinjal in India.”

The joint statement of all three activists went asserted that:

“… the biggest foreign hand by ‘STEALTH’ and official ‘COVER-UP’ will be in GMOs/GM crops if introduced into Indian agriculture. All that stands between a corporate takeover of our seeds and agriculture is the committed and exemplary work by the not-for-profit sector… In conspiring with deeply conflicted institutions of regulation, governance and agriculture… to introduce GM crops into India, the IB will in fact aid the hand-over of the ownership of our seeds and foods to multi-national corporations. This will represent the largest take-over of any nation’s agriculture and future development by foreign-hands… (and)… will plunge India into the biggest breach of internal security; of a biosecurity threat and food security crisis from which we will never recover…. GM crops have already demonstrated no yield gain, no ability to engineer for traits of drought, saline resistance etc and have some serious bio-safety issues which no regulator wishes to examine.”

The statement said that India’s Bt cotton is an outstanding example of the above scenario:

“This ‘VALUE CAPTURE’ for Monsanto which was contrived and approved by our own government mortgaging the public interest has ensured that in a short 10 years, 95% of cotton seeds in the form of Bt cotton are owned by Monsanto… It is Monsanto now that decides where cotton should be planted and when by our farmers… The Royalties accruing to Monsanto that have been expatriated are approximately Rs 4800 Crores in 12 years, (excluding other profit mark-ups)… The IB is thus conspiring with global corporate interests to hemorrhage India’s agricultural economy… We call for an investigation on the foreign influence in writing the GMO section in the IB report.”

The statement concluded:

“If India’s intelligence agencies become instruments of global corporations working against the public interest and national interest of India, our national security is under threat. This IB report is deeply anti-national and subversive of constitutional rights of citizens in our country. It does India no credit.”

Apart from attacking those campaigning against GMOs, the report accused Greenpeace and other groups of receiving foreign funds to damage economic progress by campaigning against power projects and mining.

The IB is India’s domestic spy service and garners intelligence from within India and also executes counter-intelligence and counter-terrorism tasks. Its report attempted to portray certain NGOs like Greenpeace and critics of GMOs as working against the ‘national interest’ and being in the pay of foreigners.

Discrediting certain sections of civil society as being ‘unpatriotic’, by working to undermine some bogus notion of the ‘national interest’, always sits well with ruling elites that are all too ready to play the nationalist card to garner support. Yet, in this case the report itself sides with powerful foreign corporations and, as far as GMOs are concerned, their agenda to secure control over Indian agriculture.

Those who are exercising their legal right to challenge and protest corporate-driven policies that are all too often based on staggering levels of corruption and rampant cronyism – and are non-transparent and secretive – are being discredited and smeared. However, this should come as no surprise. Various nation states such as the US and UK have used their intelligence agencies to monitor, subvert and undermine grass-root activists and civil organizations that have (by acting legitimately and within the law) attempted to hold power to account (see this and this). Governments the world over have a tendency to dislike genuine democracy and transparency.

Greenpeace India’s actions were singled out for particular criticism in the IB report. It responded by saying:

“We believe that this report is designed to muzzle and silence civil society who raise their voices against injustices to people and the environment by asking uncomfortable questions about the current model of growth.”

Since the report, Greenpeace India has experienced a good deal of pressure. After the report described Greenpeace’s activities as “a threat to national economic security,” the government has gone on to restrict the organisation’s international funding. On 9 April 2015, the Ministry of Home Affairs ordered Greenpeace India’s bank accounts to be frozen and its ability to receive funding from abroad to be suspended. According to Amnesty International India, this violates constitutional rights to freedom of expression and association.

The Ministry of Home Affairs said the acceptance of foreign funds by Greenpeace India had “prejudicially affected” public interest and the economic interest of the country.

Ananth Guruswamy, Executive Director at Amnesty International India:

“It is clear that Greenpeace is being targeted because its strong views and campaigns question the government’s development policies. The extreme measures taken by the government to disable an organisation for promoting the voices of some of the country’s most powerless people will damage and shame India. Intolerance to dissent will only weaken our society.”

Claims that Greenpeace India is acting against public interest have been dismissed by the judiciary twice. In January, the Delhi High Court directed the government to release frozen funds, observing: “Non-Governmental Organizations often take positions, which are contrary to the policies formulated by the Government of the day. That by itself…cannot be used to portray petitioner’s action as being detrimental to national interest.”

On 11 January 2015, the government prevented a Greenpeace campaigner from travelling to the UK to speak about human rights abuses related to a coal mine in Mahan, Madhya Pradesh. In March, the Delhi High court ruled that the travel restrictions violated fundamental rights, and observed that “contrarian views held by a section of people…cannot be used to describe such section or class of people as anti-national.” The court also noted there was nothing to suggest that Greenpeace India’s activities “have the potentiality of degrading the economic interest of the country.”

Ananth Guruswarmy:

“The Ministry of Environment and Forests has agreed that the Mahan coal block is located in a protected forest, where no mining should take place. Instead of dubbing Greenpeace anti-national, the government should focus on the vital issues that it raises. Amnesty International India is particularly concerned about the rights of Adivasis affected by state policies, and urges the government to strengthen protections for these communities.”

Attempts to dampen dissent in India are nothing new. State repression and physical violence. as well as the structural violence resulting from particular economic policies, affect many regions and impact tens of millions of the country’s poorest and most powerless citizens.

As the current administration seeks to speed up the opening of India’s economy to private interests and to more fully embrace the tenets of neo-liberal economic doctrine, more difficult times may lie ahead for dissenting voices.

Our America

Raul Castro

I appreciate the solidarity of all Latin American and Caribbean countries that made possible Cuba’s participation in this hemispheric forum on equal footing, andI thank the President of the Republic of Panama for the kind invitation extended to us. I bring a fraternal embrace to the Panamanian people and to the peoples of all nations represented here.

The establishment of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) on December 2-3, 2011, in Caracas, opened the way to a new era in the history of Our America, which made clear its well-earned right to live in peace and develop as their peoples freely decide, and chart the course to a future of peace, development and integration based on cooperation, solidarity and the common will to preserve their independence, sovereignty and identity.

The ideals of Simón Bolívar on the creation of a “Grand American Homeland” were a source of inspiration to epic campaigns for independence.

In 1800, there was the idea of adding Cuba to the North American Union to mark the southern boundary of the extensive empire. The 19^thcentury witnessed the emergence of such doctrines as the Manifest Destiny, with the purpose of dominating the Americas and the world, and the notion of the ‘ripe fruit’, meaning Cuba’s inevitable gravitation to the American Union, which looked down on the rise and evolution of a genuine rationale conducive to emancipation.

Later on, through wars, conquests and interventions that expansionist and dominating force stripped Our America of part of its territory and expanded as far as the Rio Grande.

After long and failing struggles, José Martí organized the “necessary war”, and created the Cuban Revolutionary Party to lead that war and to eventually found a Republic “with all and for the good of all” with the purpose of achieving “the full dignity of man.”

With an accurate and early definition of the features of his times, Martí committed to the duty “of timely preventing the United States from spreading through the Antilles as Cuba gains its independence, and from overpowering with that additional strength our lands of America.”

To him, Our America was that of the Creole and the original peoples, the black and the mulatto, the mixed-race and working America that must join the cause of the oppressed and the destitute. Presently, beyond geography, this ideal is coming to fruition.

One hundred and seventeen years ago, on April 11, 1898, the President of the United States of America requested Congressional consent for military intervention in the independence war already won with rivers of Cuban blood, and that legislative body issued a deceitful Joint Resolution recognizing the independence of the Island “de facto and de jure”. Thus, they entered as allies and seized the country as an occupying force.

Subsequently, an appendix was forcibly added to Cuba’s Constitution, the Platt Amendment that deprived it of sovereignty, authorized the powerful neighbor to interfere in the internal affairs, and gave rise to Guantánamo Naval Base, which still holds part of our territory without legal right. It was in that period that the Northern capital invaded the country, and there were two military interventions and support for cruel dictatorships.

At the time, the prevailing approach to Latin America was the “gunboat policy” followed by the “Good Neighbor” policy. Successive interventions ousted democratic governments and in twenty countries installed terrible dictatorships, twelve of these simultaneously and mostly in South America, where hundreds of thousands were killed. President Salvador Allende left us the legacy of his undying example.

It was precisely 13 years ago that a coup d’état staged against beloved President Hugo Chavez Frías was defeated by his people. Later on, an oil coup would follow.

On January 1^st, 1959, sixty years after the U.S. troops entered Havana, the Cuban Revolution triumphed and the Rebel Army commanded by Fidel Castro Ruz arrived in the capital.

On April 6, 1960, barely one year after victory, Assistant Secretary of State Lester Mallory drafted a wicked memorandum, declassified tens of years later, indicating that “The majority of Cubans support Castro […] An effective political opposition does not exist […]; the only foreseeable means of alienating internal support [to the government] is through disenchantment and disaffection based on economic dissatisfaction and hardship […] to weaken the economic life of Cuba […] denying it money and supplies to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.”

We have endured severe hardships. Actually, 77% of the Cuban people was born under the harshness of the blockade, but our patriotic convictions prevailed. Aggression increased resistance and accelerated the revolutionary process. Now, here we are with our heads up high and our dignity unblemished.

When we had already proclaimed socialism and the people had fought in the Bay of Pigs to defend it, President Kennedy was murdered, at the exact time when Fidel Castro, leader of the Cuban Revolution, was receiving his message seeking to engage Cuba in a dialogue.

After the Alliance for Progress, and having paid our external debt several times over while unable to prevent its constant growth, our countries were subjected to a wild and globalizing neoliberalism, an expression of imperialism at the time that left the region dealing with a lost decade.

Then, the proposal of a “mature hemispheric partnership” resulted in the imposition of the Free Trade Association of the Americas (FTAA), –linked to the emergence of these Summits– that would have brought about the destruction of the economy, sovereignty and common destiny of our nations, if it had not been derailed at Mar del Plata in 2005 under the leadership of Presidents Kirchner, Chavez and Lula. The previous year, Chavez and Fidel had brought to life the Bolivarian Alternative known today as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America.

Excellencies,

We have expressed to President Barack Obama our disposition to engage in a respectful dialogue and work for a civilized coexistence between our states while respecting our profound differences.

I welcome as a positive step his recent announcement that he will soon decide on Cuba’s designation in a list of countries sponsor of terrorism, a list in which it should have never been included.

Up to this day, the economic, commercial and financial blockade is implemented against the Island with full intensity causing damages and scarcities that affect our people and becoming the main obstacle to the development of our economy. The fact is that it stands in violation of International Law, and its extraterritorial scope disrupts the interests of every State.

We have publicly expressed to President Obama, who was also born under the blockade policy and inherited it from 10 former Presidents when he took office, our appreciation for his brave decision to engage the U.S. Congress in a debate to put an end to such policy.

This and other issues should be resolved in the process toward the future normalization of bilateral relations.

As to us, we shall continue working to update the Cuban economic model with the purpose of improving our socialism and moving ahead toward development and the consolidation of the achievements of a Revolution that has set to itself the goal of “conquering all justice.”

Esteemed colleagues,

Venezuela is not, and it cannot be, a threat to the national security of a superpower like the United States. We consider it a positive development that the U.S. President has admitted it.

I should reaffirm our full, determined and loyal support to the sister Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela, to the legitimate government and civilian-military alliance headed by President Nicolas Maduro, and to the Bolivarian and chavista people of that country struggling to pursue their own path while confronting destabilizing attempts and unilateral sanctions that should be lifted; we demand the repeal of the Executive Order, an action that our Community would welcome as a contribution to dialogue and understanding in the hemisphere.

We shall continue encouraging the efforts of the Republic of Argentina to recover the Falklands, the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, and supporting its legitimate struggle in defense of financial sovereignty.

We shall maintain our support for the actions of the Republic of Ecuador against the transnational companies causing ecological damages to its territory and trying to impose blatantly unfair conditions.

I wish to acknowledge the contribution of Brazil, and of President Dilma Rouseff, to the strengthening of regional integration and the development of social policies that have brought progress and benefits to extensive popular sectors, the same that the thrust against various leftist governments of the region is trying to reverse.

We shall maintain our unwavering support for the Latin American and Caribbean people of Puerto Rico in its determination to achieve self-determination and independence, as the United Nations Decolonization Committee has ruled tens of times.

We shall also keep making our contribution to the peace process in Colombia.

We should all multiply our assistance to Haiti, not only through humanitarian aid but also with resources that help in its development, and, in the same token, support a fair and deferential treatment of the Caribbean countries in their economic relations as well as reparations for damages brought on them by slavery and colonialism.

We are living under threat of huge nuclear arsenals that should be removed, and are running out of time to counteract climate change. Threats to peace keep growing and conflicts spreading out.

As President Fidel Castro has said “[…] the main causes rest with poverty and underdevelopment, and with the unequal distribution of wealth and knowledge prevailing in the world. It cannot be forgotten that current poverty and underdevelopment are the result of conquest, colonization, slavery and plundering by colonial powers in most of the planet, the emergence of imperialism and the bloody wars for a new division of the world. Humanity should be aware of what they have been and should be no more. Today, our species has accumulated sufficient knowledge, ethical values and scientific resources to move forward to a historical era of true justice and humanism. Nothing of what exists today in economic and political terms serves the interests of Humanity. It cannot be sustained. It must be changed,” he concluded.

Cuba shall continue advocating the ideas for which our people have taken on enormous sacrifices and risks, fighting alongside the poor, the unemployed and the sick without healthcare; the children forced to live on their own, to work or be submitted to prostitution; those going hungry or discriminated; the oppressed and the exploited who make up the overwhelming majority of the world population.

Financial speculation, the privileges of Bretton Wood, and the unilateral removal of the gold standard have grown increasingly suffocating. We need a transparent and equitable financial system.

It is unacceptable that less than ten big corporations, mostly American, determine what is read, watched or listened to worldwide. The Internet should be ruled by an international, democratic and participatory governance, particularly concerning its content. The militarization of cyberspace, and the secret and illegal useof computer systems to attack other States are equally unacceptable. We shall not be dazzled or colonized again.

Mister President,

It is my opinion that hemispheric relations need to undergo deep changes, particularly in the areas of politics, economics and culture, so that, on the basis of International Law and the exercise of self-determination and sovereign equality, they can focus on the development of mutually beneficial partnerships and cooperation in the interest of all our nations and the objectives proclaimed.

The adoption in January 2014, during the Second Summit of CELAC in Havana, of the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Peace Zone made a transcendental contribution to that end, marked by Latin American and Caribbean unity in diversity.

This is evident in the progress we are making toward genuinely Latin American and Caribbean integration processes through CELAC, UNASUR, CARICOM, MERCOSUR, ALBA-TCP, SICA and the ACS, which underline our growing awareness of the necessity to work in unison in order to ensure our development.

Through that Proclamation we have committed ourselves “to have differences between nations resolved peacefully, through dialogue and negotiation, and other ways consistent with International Law.”

Living in peace, and engaging in mutual cooperation to tackle challenges and resolve problems that, after all, are affecting and will affect us all, is today a pressing need.

As the Proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Peace Zone sets forth, “the inalienable right of every State to choose its political, economic, social and cultural system, as an essential condition to secure peaceful coexistence between nations” should be respected.

Under that Proclamation we committed to observe our “obligation to not interfere, directly or indirectly, in the internal affairs of any other State, and to observe the principles of national sovereignty, equality of rights and free determination of the peoples,” and to respect “the principles and standards of International Law […] and the principles and purposes of the United Nations Charter.”

That historical document urges “all member states of the International Community to fully respect this Declaration in its relations with the CELAC member States.”

We now have the opportunity, all of us here, as the Proclamation also states, of learning “to exercise tolerance and coexist in peace as good neighbors.”

There are substantial differences, yes, but also commonalities which enable us to cooperate making it possible to live in this world fraught with threats to peace and to the survival of the human species.

What is it that prevents cooperation at a hemispheric scale in facing climate change?

Why is it that the countries of the two Americas cannot fight together against terrorism, drug-trafficking and organized crime without politically biased positions?

Why can we not seek together the necessary resources to provide the hemisphere with schools, hospitals, employment, and to advance in the eradication of poverty?

Would it not be possible to reduce inequity in the distribution of wealth and infant mortality rates, to eliminate hunger and preventable diseases, and to eradicate illiteracy?

Last year, we established hemispheric cooperation to confront and prevent Ebola, and the countries of the two Americas made a concerted effort. This should stimulate our efforts toward greater achievements.

Cuba, a small country deprived of natural resources, that has performed in an extremely hostile atmosphere, has managed to attain the full participation of its citizens in the nation’s political and social life; with universal and free healthcare and education services; a social security system ensuring that no one is left helpless; significant progress in the creation of equal opportunities and in the struggle against all sorts of discrimination; the full exercise of the rights of children and women; access to sports and culture; and, the right to life and to public safety.

Despite scarcities and challenges, we abide by the principle of sharing what we have. Currently, 65 thousand Cuban collaborators are working in 89 countries, basically in the areas of healthcare and education, while 68 thousand professionals and technicians from 157 countries have graduated in our Island, 30 thousand of them in the area of healthcare.

If Cuba has managed to do this with very little resources, think of how much more the hemisphere could do with the political will to pool its efforts to help the neediest countries.

Thanks to Fidel and the heroic Cuban people, we have come to this Summit to honor Martí’s commitment, after conquering freedom with our own hands “proud of Our America, to serve it and to honor it […] with the determination and the capacity to contribute to see it loved for its merits and respected for its sacrifices.”

The Geopolitics of Chinese Investments in Sri Lanka

Teshu Singh

Chinese investments in Sri Lanka are can be primarily found in three sectors: trade, infrastructure and defence. Infrastructural investments such as the Colombo-Katunayake Expressway, the National Theatre of Performing Arts, and the Bandaranaike Memorial International Conference Hall (BMICH) are symbolic of Chinese presence in Sri Lanka. Apart from these investments, two other projects – the Hambantota port and the Colombo Port City project – have drawn attention to the nature of the Chinese investments in Sri Lanka. This article seeks to analyse the geopolitics of the recent Colombo Port City project and the larger Chinese game plan vis-a-vis such investments in the region.

The Colombo Port City ProjectThe Colombo Port City project was inaugurated by Chinese President Xi Jinping in September 2014, with a budget of $1.4 billion; it is funded by China’s state-controlled China Communication Construction Company (CCCC) Ltd., a subsidiary of the China Harbour Engineering Company. The Colombo port city project aims to play a major role in the Maritime Silk Road (MSR) project. With the change of government in Sri Lanka, the project is under scrutiny – for its high interest rates, corruption, environment issues and most recently on exclusive rights over the air space above the Colombo Port City land – and has been withheld at the moment.

The project has opened up divisions within the new government, a fragile alliance between parts of the old opposition United National Party, defectors from former President Mahinda Rajapaksa’s ranks (including President Sirisena himself), and smaller groups. Sirisena had promised that “equal relations will be established with India, Chinaa, Pakistan and Japan...the principal countries in Asia.” This has heralded a new political process in Sri Lanka; the new government had come to power on the issue of curbing China’s increasing role in Sri Lanka, but not much has been done; Sirisena has stated that “India is a good neighbour and China is a good ally.”

Sri Lanka is balancing both countries in the unfolding geopolitics of the region. Sirisena visited india in his first international trip since assuming power and there have been four high-level bilateral visits between the two governments. Sirisena also visited Beijing in March 2015. Not much clarification was made regarding the port city project; in fact Sirisena stated that Sri Lanka “welcomes more investment from China, promising a healthy investment climate.” This is in sharp contrast to the Sri Lankan foreign minister’s statement where he reiterated that Colombo will focus on “the ‘back to the center’ foreign policy” during his visit to Beijing.

In Pakistan, apart from the geopolitics surrounding Sri Lanka’s Colombo Port City project, there are similar developments that have been affected by the domestic politics. The Karakoram Highway/ Friendship Highway and the Gwadar port built by China in Pakistan’s Balochistan Province have been affected by the latter’s domestic politics. Not much commercial activity has taken place in the Gwadar port due to domestic politics. Apart from Gwadar, two joint mining ventures at Saindak (copper) and the Duddar (zinc) are stuck due to serious contentions the between Balochi residents and Islamabad. The Baloch nationals do not want mega projects but sovereign autonomy so that they can control their own local resources.

In fact, the hashtag, #ChinaQuitBalochistan, has been trending on Twitter to express wariness towards China.

Despite the delay in these projects, the Sino-Pakistan relation still thrives.

China's Endgame in the RegionWith the aforementioned projects in process, China gets an opportunity to maintain its presence in South Asia. These investments give Beijing an opportunity to maintain its presence in the Indian Ocean intermittently. Through these investments, China gets strategic and commercial space in the region. Sri Lanka has consistently supported China’s ‘One China Policy’ and has opposed any attempts in the past by Taiwan to seek membership in the United Nations. Over a period of time China-Sri Lanka relations have deepened, and with the growing economy, Sri Lanka is a readymade market for Chinese goods and services. The overall China-Sri Lanka bilateral is a win-win situation for both countries, militarily and economically.

China has made investments in many Indian Ocean littorals, and especially in Sri Lanka and Pakistan to ensure smooth transportation of its energy resources through the Ocean. To this end, Beijing needs a peaceful and stable neighbourhood to achieve ‘Comprehensive National Power’ and for this a ‘peaceful periphery’ has become a pre-requisite to Chinese foreign policy. Meanwhile, domestic politics of the host countries are playing crucial roles in shaping the geopolitics of the region.