The Positive Voices

Nothing happens in Cuba unless preceded by careful calculation by the regime. A small group of prisoners of conscience in Cuba, mostly ill, will be “liberated” by giving them the following options: “Go into forced exile, or remain in prison.” To some this piece of news is “a sign of improvement” in the human rights situation. But this looks like just another calculated move. Never mind that they shouldn’t have been incarcerated to begin with, now they must suffer another violation to their human rights, ostracism, and forced exile. Why now? Cuba is in dire straits. The government has admitted that the system can’t operate anymore as its producer, manager and provider. The economy needs transition urgently. But how can it when contrary to other former socialist countries the government never planned for a transition? How could they have done that when the government is basically a family owned business? Past speculations by analysts that Cuba could be contemplating transformation via a Chinese or Vietnamese model have remained just speculations. What we have seen since the new presidency is the consolidation of a gerontocracy. The most likely scenario is a transition Russian style. The Cuban apparatchiks are doing everything they can to legitimize a transfer of state property into their hands. They cannot allow any opposition, whether in jail or speaking freely in Cuba. All they need is time and for the rest of the world to look the other way as they have largely done for over 50 years. The transfer, making official what is already reality, needs legitimacy. It needs the concert of nations, from Spain and the European Union, to the United States and the “progressive” governments in Latin America. This cannot happen while prisoners and dissidents are dying in hunger strikes. Many of the state industries from tourism to communications are already in the hands of a few generals. The European Union with countries which not long ago where under regimes just like the one still in Cuba is an obstacle to what is building to be the second (after Russia) greatest national robbery in history. Why Spain’s intercession? “Socialist” Spain has business interests in Cuba. It can hardly afford any tinkering with its finances at this moment at all. But Spain is also feeling pressure from those countries in the European Union whose past under real socialism is still a recent memory. Ostracism is no act of generosity but another kind of death, social death, and another tool of social control. It is exclusion without bars. It says to its victim “you don’t belong here”. It is no wonder then that the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes deportation from one’s homeland for political reasons a violation. Ostracism as state punishment is just a political version of “the silent treatment.” It is a cruel form of de-personification of a human being. Ostracism does not recognize another’s existence. The political form of this non-existence is the lack of recognition by the regime that there is an opposition, a non-violent civil rights movement. The regime doesn’t even deal with them; instead it has mediated its concession through external parties like Spain and the Church. But what the regime has not been able to avoid after all, not matter its calculations, is the admission now that Cuba holds its citizens in prison for expressing their dissent. Why release only a few now and not the rest until a few months later (another 52 will be liberated in a few months)? The regime cannot afford a group photo of famished prisoners and the tacit admission of political prisoners. It wouldn’t play well in certain countries in Europe.

The President of the United States of America, Felipe Calderón and the President of the United States of México Barack H. Obama met recently at the White House and later the President of the United States, Felipe Calderón addressed the U.S. Congress. What? Well, it was hard to tell who the president of what country was. President Calderón goes to the U.S. Congress and criticizes the rights of the federated State of Arizona to defend its borders and enforce federal law which is not being enforced, and he receives a standing ovation. I guess, due to traditional reciprocity laws and traditions in international law, President Obama will soon address the Mexican congress and criticize México for the way it treats its illegal immigrants. While there the President of the United States of México Barack H. Obama can reiterate, “The new law in Arizona is a misdirected effort — a misdirected expression of frustration over our broken immigration system, and which has raised concerns in both our countries. I want everyone, American and Mexican, to know my administration is taking a very close look at the Arizona law. We’re examining any implications, especially for civil rights. Because in the United States of America, no law-abiding person — be they an American citizen, a legal immigrant, or a visitor or tourist from Mexico — should ever be subject to suspicion simply because of what they look like.” And he could also lecture the Mexican congress about México’s current immigration laws which among other things says: “Foreigners are admitted into Mexico ‘according to their possibilities of contributing to national progress.” (Article 32) “Immigration officials must ‘ensure’ that ‘immigrants will be useful elements for the country and that they have the necessary funds for their sustenance’ and for their dependents.” (Article 34) “Foreigners may be barred from the country if their presence upsets ‘the equilibrium of the national demographics,’ when foreigners are deemed detrimental to ‘economic or national interests,’ when they do not behave like good citizens in their own country, when they have broken Mexican laws, and when “they are not found to be physically or mentally healthy.” (Article 37) I’m sure that no Latin American government will protest this lecturing from the “yanqui”, especially about “the equilibrium of the national demographics” racial purity aspects of Mexican law. So, you see? They have become interchangeable, especially since Presidente Obama said during the occasion, “A nation is not defined by its borders” which we all know México already puts into practice. Just look at what the President of the United States Felipe Calderón had to say about Mexican immigration laws (with Wolf Blitzer, CNN 5/19/10): Blitzer: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, can they just walk in? Calderón: No! They need to fulfill, uh, a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedence. Blitzer: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants? Calderón: Of course! Of course! Blitzer: If somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America through the southern border of Mexico and they wind up in Mexico, they can get a job? Calderon: No, no, no. Blitzer: They can work? Calderon: If somebody do that without permissions, we send — we send back them. So, you see? Our laws are not just more lenient, but not even enforced, although they are similar in many respects. There are many interests, in both parties in the U.S. and in the countries from where illegal immigrants arrive, who benefit from the present state of affairs. In other words, the immoral state of “status quo” is convenient. The challenges for the presidents of the borderless United States of Mexico-America in this summit were simple. Mexico has immigration laws which are a lot more strict than those of the US, and the federal laws of the US on immigration are the ones adopted by the state of Arizona because of the failure of the federal government in defending the security of the border states. So, these are the questions on the table for both countries… For Mexico: if other states of the US join with Arizona how is México going to be able to continue exporting Mexicans to the US so that they continue sending remittances while providing a release valve to alleviate its demographic, economic and unemployment situation, without the Mexican elite having to do anything to reform the most corrupt country of Latin America (with the exception of Cuba)? For the U.S: How to continue obtaining cheap labor (almost slaves) for private enterprise, at the same time that the illegal immigrant population receives services free of costs to private enterprise but paid for by the taxpayer while not losing politically at home? We have said it before, the state of illegal immigration is immoral for various reasons. First for the exploitation and the marketing of human beings as simple utilitarian instruments of production, and secondly for the various degrees of hypocrisy, let’s call them “contradictions,” which involves all. Summits are usually given a thematic name. What should we name this one? How about the Double-Standard Summit, amigos? None of the countries from where illegal immigrants come are countries that do not enforce respect of their own borders.   American labor needs more respect than that.

“Take up the White Man’s burden— Send forth the best ye breed— Go, bind your sons to exile To serve your captives’ need; To wait, in heavy harness, On fluttered folk and wild— Your new-caught sullen peoples, Half devil and half child.” Hope is a dangerous thing. As a human dynamic it is the propeller of human existence. When abused as cheap demagoguery it can be deleterious to human progress. To debate its origin whether divine or purely psycho-biological is not my concern at the moment. But supra materialist, Marxist German philosopher, Ernst Bloch tried to take a different approach to this debate from a human standpoint. Hope appears as an internal template, a fill-in the blanks format for human expectations and praxis. But hope in Haiti, as human hope goes, is probably at its lowest ebb at this moment. The hope brought in by those who want to help may be high but may also be based on their expectations. In that sense it is worth noting for a moment the connection between the words “hope” and “expectations”. While hope implies at least some minimum of certainty and confidence in that which is hoped for, expectation is actual action, watching it already taking place. But both require a level of realism. Before the earthquake: Haiti already had 100,000 orphans, 84% under the poverty line, 54% in the misery side of it; 1 in 10 Haitians are HIV positive. The country has been under uncontrolled deforestation, there is no tradition of effective civic government or national democracy, on the contrary, political tribalism rules; there is a projected 300,000 homeless at the moment (30,000 as of the same day of the earthquake) and the culture is deeply fatalistic. A CNN reporter said, “there is a saying that, Haitians are 80% Catholics, 15% Protestant, 100% Voodoo.” (Voodoo was made the official religion of Haiti by dictator Duvalier) At a recent meeting of South American leaders, President Preval asked for tons of seeds, fertilizer, and technical assistance to reforest Haiti. To overcome deforestation, which already was a disaster before the earthquake, is going to require also the rehabilitation of a whole ecosystem—a scientific and development project of major proportions. If there isn’t in place a reasonable sustainable ecosystem capable of tolerating Haiti’s natural phenomena, such as seasonal rains and hurricanes, no amount of seeds will guarantee success. Then there is the human phenomenon. Before the earthquake there were already in place around 1,700 missionary organizations in Haiti on a permanent basis. Then there are many more that go there on short trips for relief efforts, others use Haiti as a mission lab. Most of these organizations really “do the Lord’s work”. They are motivated by a sense of religious altruism. Secular and non-governmental agencies have also been present for years. Most of the missionary work is serious and responsible, but plenty of it is sectarian proselytism and anti-Catholic. Will Haiti ever become anything more than what is at present, the poorest country in the western hemisphere? Will Haitians be capable of filling the blanks for themselves? I think they can. Yet the recovery effort is going to take years of more international aid and dependency. And unless a program is instituted where Haitians are involved or paid to work in their own reconstruction they will become wards of the UN (think Palestinians). After the telethons from Hollywood are over we will feel better, but I’m afraid that in a year or two Haiti will be forgotten. Our developing debate on Haiti reminds me of the satirical anti-imperialist 19th century poem by Rudyard Kipling, taken to heart by many who read it as a command for the white race to civilize and Christianize the world. Traditionally seen as a pro-imperial exhortation, a closer reading in its entirety tells us otherwise. It sarcastically warns us of the pitfalls of “good-ism” ideology, the kind that wraps questionable imperious intentions in an aura of duty, paternalism in a garment of compassion. Immediately after the earthquake the left wing blogs were full of conspiratorial theories and blaming of the U.S. for the political and economic state of Haiti. On the right, there were all kinds of religious and racial theories. Explanations for the earthquake and fate of the Haitian people ran the gamut, from Rev. Pat Robertson’s theory of Haiti’s founding fathers “pact with the Devil,” to actor Danny Glover’s theory of Mother Earth punishing “us” for not signing the Copenhagen accord. Echoes and comparisons to Katrina were also brought to memory. The esoteric explanations kept pouring in. Hugo Chavez said the U.S. is occupying Haiti and caused the earthquake with a secret earthquake weapon later to be tried against Iran, and Rachel Maddow blamed Bush. The “Spiritual but not Religious” movement advises us that we can always do this: “An earthquake has rocked Haiti and shaken the foundations of their optimism. Your positive thoughts and actions can be the rock on which they rebuild their lives. Knowing that they have massive global support will empower them to build a steely resolve to begin believing again. “Say to yourself: My infinite spirit that cannot be broken, greets the infinite spirit in the people of Haiti who have suffered devastating circumstances before and will survive again.” Whatever the case, they all seem to want to urge us into action or even to inaction, either by way of guilt or fear. The White Man’s Burden lives. But any work that is not oriented to facilitate civic responsibility and institutions, and is just religious in nature, is only contributing to further dependence and self-fulfilling images of impotence. What a people believe about themselves is instrumental either in their liberation or in becoming pernicious self-fulfilling prophecies. Why is Haiti still so poor? Is it because it is cursed by God as Rev. Robertson says? Rubbish, of course. If there is any “curse” involved it is none other than its own cultural, historical and political dynamics, the consequences of exploitation and slavery and perhaps in the cursed blessing of having being one of the major recipients of the “White Man’s Burden.” The question is, are Haitians going to rebuild their country, or are we “good Christians” going to do it for them... again... and again... and again? Are we going to be agents of liberation, or of continuity in dependency? Sometimes charity can disguise the bigotry of low expectations. To really empower Haitians to empower themselves we must let them fill in their blanks.  

Does Puerto Rico need a civil war? I know this is like asking “Do you need a hole in your head?” But is the United States waiting for one to develop before it realizes the implications of one fateful decision in American foreign policy in 1898? It can be said that Puerto Rico has witnessed a civil war for more than two centuries, if by civil war is meant that Puerto Ricans have avoided coming to actual physical blows with each other over the fate of their country. In 1898 Spain “ceded” the island of Puerto Rico to the United States as result of the “Spanish American War”. Unfortunately, American public attention is never paid to issues regarding foreign affairs until caskets start coming back wrapped in American flags. So it is not surprising that after 100 years most Americans remain ignorant about the colonial situation of Puerto Rico. Campaigning in Puerto Rico during the primaries candidate Obama promised to attend to Puerto Rico’s situation. Last week a task force of 18 White House emissaries went to the island “to listen” and to learn about the situation. But according to Congressman Gutierrez of Chicago, he bypassed those in Congress of Puerto Rican birth or descent in any consultations. Since the 1950s Puerto Ricans, and most of their fellow American citizens in the continent, have thought the issue of the island’s status was solved for good in the form of a “Commonwealth”. But was it? A presidential task force initiated under President Bush, made it clear that as result of the “Treaty of Paris” which ended the “Spanish-American War”, the truth is that Puerto Rico is the property of the United States Congress. Puerto Rico is not even “part of” the United States. It simply “belongs to”. But there was a problem with this. There were people living in those islands at the time of the treaty. Those people had been struggling for their independence from Spain and at the time of the 1898 war they had settled their affairs with Spain. Puerto Rico became an autonomous province of Spain, with full self-government and with full representation in the Cortes (Spain’s parliament). Although Congress and American presidents, their actions and inactions, share most of the blame for the situation, Puerto Ricans also share in the responsibility. In the 1990s the leaders of the three major parties, each representing a status option—statehood, independence, association—came together to petition Congress for a commitment to solve the centenary puzzle. But for the most part, to this day, they have failed to present a united front to solve the issue. Only the irrational would deny that as murky as the situation of Puerto Rico is, it has, nevertheless, been somewhat mutually beneficial. The U.S. got what it wanted, a highly valuable strategic foothold in the Atlantic, a captive market, and it managed to do it while presenting to the world a showcase of democracy in the Caribbean. Puerto Rico developed economically surpassing by far its Caribbean neighbors and most, if not all, of Latin America. Through the 20th Century a series of juridical decisions and the applications of federal laws regarding the islands made the situation harder to untangle. Precedent has been established in situations for which perhaps there is no reversal. The majority of Puerto Ricans have consistently expressed their desire to remain associated with the United States in one form or another. They are a nation divided between those in the islands and those in the American Diasporas. Some say that Puerto Rico has become a de facto state of the union. But still the sovereignty of Puerto Rico resides not in its people but in the Congress of the United States. Even though the United States granted “natural born” American citizenship to Puerto Ricans, there is no longer anyway that one cannot say that a colony is a colony. The people of the United States, through their representatives in Congress, took on an enormous historical and moral responsibility when it demanded Puerto Rico as payment for the war. It placed the people of Puerto Rico, and the American people, in an almost unsolvable conundrum. Will Americans accept Puerto Rico as a new state of the union? Is independence inevitable? Or is the U.S. capable of accepting a new arrangement based on mutual benefit, and commensurate with a 100 years old relationship? Only through moral good will is there any possibility of truly moving forward. Puerto Ricans need a common front to find that good will in Congress. It’s time to end the mutually shameful conditions. Presidential task forces mean nothing. If Congress won’t listen, make them.