With all due respect, Cuban leaders in Cuba and Miami have been sitting down to talk for decades and have made great progress.

National dialogues in Cuba

Cuba's democratic nonviolent opposition has repeatedly engaged in dialogues, including national dialogues, in order to mobilize and coordinate Cubans to reflect on our homeland’s future. 

Gustavo Arcos Bergnes and Sebastian Arcos Bergnes called for dialogue in 1990.

In 1990, against the protests of many Cuban exiles, Gustavo Arcos issued a statement to Castro asking him to convene a "National Dialogue," which would include all segments of Cuban society, on the island and in exile. During his address to the Worker's Congress on January 28, 1990, Castro issued his response noting that "the Cuban people" will take care of those activists. On March 5, 1990, government sponsored mobs attacked Sebastian Arcos's home. On March 8, another mob, led by future Foreign Minister Roberto Robaina, attacked Gustavo's home.

Oswaldo Payá throughout his life called for unity and dialogue between all Cubans, in and outside the country. His National Dialogue program and All Cubans Forum in 2005- 2006, involved over 15,000 thousand Cubans both inside and outside of Cuba in discussions on a proposal for a nonviolent change towards democracy. I proudly participated in this dialogue that sought a transition from the existing laws of the dictatorship to the rule of law in a restored democratic order. Payá near the end of his life called for a referendum on basic human rights. He was murdered, together with his movement's youth leader, on July 22, 2012.

Oswaldo Payá shows tentative program for a national dialogue in Havana on Feb 17, 2005.

In November 2020, the San Isidro Movement, a movement of artists founded in 2018 to protest Decree 349 that increased censorship in the arts in Cuba, engaged in a series of escalating nonviolent protests, demanding the release of their colleague Denis Solís González unjustly jailed on November 9, 2020, and in response to increasing regime repression against them for protesting for his release. On November  26, 2020 the San Isidro Movement's headquarters was raided and artists protesting inside taken by the secret police.

Activists under siege at the Isidro Movement headquarters in Havana, Cuba

The Castro regime ended up with a much larger problem than 14 protesters in a small space in the San Isidro neighborhood in Havana. Young people, mostly artists and academics, began gathering throughout the day of November 27, 2020 outside the Ministry of Culture. 

Young Cubans gathered outside the Ministry of Culture on November 27, 2020

Their numbers continued growing into the evening demanding the Minister meet with protesters to negotiate terms for a dialogue.  Thirty representatives, elected by the hundreds gathered, went in and met with officials. 

They emerged with a commitment to dialogue and to consider the points raised by the protesters. Meanwhile the dictatorship sent truckloads of plainclothes security to surround the demonstrators, and to intimidate them. They also closed off the path to the Ministry of Culture, and began using tear gas and physical force to prevent others from continuing to join the protesters. Instead of following through with a dialogue to resolve the differences that had generated the protests the regime launched a media assault against the San Isidro Movement against the protesters.

Today, San Isidro Movement leaders Luis Manuel Otero Alcántara and Maykel Castillo Pérez are prisoners of conscience serving five and nine year prison sentences in Cuba. Other members of the San Isidro Movement, such as Anamely Ramos González and Omara Ruiz Urquiola, were exiled by the Castro dictatorship and are not allowed to return home.

The Center for a Free Cuba in April 2021 hosted a conversation titled "The San Isidro Movement: Nonviolent Resistance, Power and Dialogue" with Professor Jorge Sanguinetty and Cuban artists Kizzy Macias and Eligio Perez Merino. It is available on YouTube in Spanish. It was moderated by Sebastian Arcos Cazabon.

Do not confuse the dictatorship with the Cuban people

On March 22, 2016, President Obama did the wave with dictator Raul Castro

The United States Institute of Peace published a Peace Brief on October 23, 2015 by Susan Stigant; and Elizabeth Murray titled "National Dialogues: A Tool for Conflict Transformation?" that highlights both the opportunities and risks in adopting this tool.

"National dialogue is an increasingly popular tool for conflict resolution and political transformation. It can broaden debate regarding a country’s trajectory beyond the usual elite decision makers; however, it can also be misused and manipulated by leaders to consolidate their power."

The Cuban dictatorship's Miguel Díaz-Canel claims that they "want to strengthen [their] relationships with the United States, regardless of ideological differences,” but this is not the main problem. The main problem is the abusive relationship between the Cuban dictatorship, and the Cuban people.

The Castro regime has not indicated a desire to dialogue with the Cuban people, but to dialogue with the United States. This is not the first time that has happened, and it is not a game changer, but a tactic to prolong the dictatorship. It has been successfully carried out before.

Lessons for Cuba from the experience in Romania

President Richard Nixon and President Jimmy Carter met with Ceasescu 

The United States made this mistake before in Eastern Europe with their "successful" embrace of the Nicolae Ceasescu regime in Romania.

Out of all the countries of Eastern Europe, the United States had the closest diplomatic relations with Romania. This was due to the Nixon administration seeking to exploit differences between Romania and the Soviet Union. Nicolae Ceasescu denounced the Soviet invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and continued diplomatic relations with Israel maintaining an independent foreign policy from the Soviet Union.

Richard Nixon visited Romania in August of 1969. In 1972 Romania became eligible for U.S. Export-Import Bank credits and in 1975 was accorded most favored nation status. In 1978 Nicolae Ceasescu and his wife visited Washington, DC on a state visit and was hosted by President Jimmy Carter who welcomed the dictator and described him in the following glowing terms:

"I've enjoyed being with him. He's a very good adviser. He's a man who in the past has suffered greatly, imprisoned, tortured, but because of his courage and because of his belief in the future of his own country, notable achievements have been brought to the people who have confidence in him. It's a great pleasure for me again to express my welcome to him to our country, and I would like to propose a toast to a great leader, President Ceausescu, and to the brave and friendly people of Romania. Mr. President, to you and your people."

Despite having the worse human rights record in Eastern Europe it was not until 1988 that to preempt congressional action, Ceausescu renounced MFN treatment, calling Jackson-Vanik and other human rights requirements unacceptable interference in Romanian sovereignty. Secretary of State Schultz had warned Ceausescu in 1985 to improve his human rights behavior or lose favorable trade status. The Heritage Foundation argued in 1985 that the previous twenty years of U.S. engagement with the regime in Romania had coincided with deteriorating human rights standards.

Ceasescu's regime was one of the nastier dictatorships of the East block. In addition to the typical accoutrements of a Stalinist regime this "American ally" managed to reach new lows. Imagine for a moment being born and placed in a cage as a newborn washed via a hose with cold water and never experiencing human touch.

10,000 Romanian babies infected with HIV through dirty needles.

Fed like animals and contracting HIV, hepatitis, and other diseases through dirty needles used to inject the children with vitamins. This was done by Ceausescu's communist regime in Romania. The regime decided it needed to increase its population and in 2013 Scientific American explained how this crime was systematically planned out and its aftermath in the article Tragedy Leads to Study of Severe Child Neglect.

Nicolae Ceausescu decreed in 1966 that Romania would develop its “human capital” via a government-enforced mandate to increase the country's population. Ceauşescu, Romania's leader from 1965 to 1989, banned contraception and abortions and imposed a “celibacy tax” on families that had fewer than five children. State doctors—the menstrual police—conducted gynecologic examinations in the workplace of women of childbearing age to see whether they were producing sufficient offspring. The birth rate initially skyrocketed. Yet because families were too poor to keep their children, they abandoned many of them to large state-run institutions.

 Hundreds of thousands of children were subjected to this. This was the country that US taxpayers subsidized with US Export-Import Bank credits. Romania under Ceausescu inspired Margaret Atwood to write The Handmaid's Tale.

Romania, the country with the closest diplomatic and economic relationship with the United States in Eastern Europe, saw the rule of  Nicolae Ceasescu end in a violent blood bath. The dictator and his wife executed in a show trial on Christmas day and scores of innocent Romanians shot by the state security services. More than a thousand people were killed. The communists in power under Ceasescu remained in power until 1996 in a system marked by continuity until democrats were able to wrest control from them nonviolently.  

Relations between the United States and Communist Romania were "great", but the relation with the Romanian people was horrid, and that defined how things would end - not U.S. - Romanian relations. Furthermore, the good relations between the perverse regime in Romania and the United States, is a stain upon the honor of America.

Lessons from Poland

Thankfully, Ronald Reagan took a different approach in Poland, and the rest of Eastern Europe.

Ronald Reagan entered office on January 20, 1981 and on December 13, 1981 the communist regime in Poland had declared martial law and was cracking down on the Solidarity movement. 10,000 people were rounded up and about 100 died during martial law. Ronald Reagan in his Christmas Address on December 23, 1981 denounced the crackdown (beginning at 4 minutes into the above video) and outlined economic sanctions against Poland while demanding that the human rights of the Polish people be respected. He didn't call on Poles from the diaspora to represent American interests in normalizing relations with the Polish Communist regime while Polish dissidents were being rounded up and killed. The United States took a stand recognizing the sovereignty of the Polish people.

The Reagan Administration revoked most-favored-nation (MFN) status in response to the Polish Government's decision to ban Solidarity in 1981. The outcome in Poland was a nonviolent transition led by the Polish solidarity movement in a national dialogue between the government and the opposition that ended in free elections in 1989. 

The approach being advocated in Cuba, by some policy makers, pursues the approach pursued in Romania, and will likely have a similar, bloody outcome to the shame of those who have advocated it.

We need a real national dialogue in Cuba, and that does not mean the United States siding with the dictatorship in Cuba, downplaying its crimes against the Cuban people as Washington did in Romania under three presidencies. It means recognizing the dictatorship for what it is, and not what you'd like it to be and side with the Cuban people, not their oppressor. 

This is my first contribution to the current dialogue.

Solidarity with Free Cubans: Chilean Democrat experiences repression first hand in Cuba

Berta Soler (Left),  Felipe Kast (center), Antonio Rodiles (Right)

This past Sunday in Havana a Chilean member of parliament marched together with the Ladies in White and other free Cubans in a nonviolent demand for the release of all political prisoners. Like the Cubans he accompanied this free Chilean was beaten up and arrested without warning. He was one of the 60 detained in Havana that day. His name is Felipe Kast and he offered the following description of what took place:

"There was no dialogue, the shock group of approximately 100 people simply arrived in vehicles, in buses, and I was knocked to the ground, handcuffed and taken to another place without being able to explain or learning any reason for it."

 Although, Felipe Kast is a conservative and on the right of the political spectrum in Chile that does not determine the posture taken with regards to Cuba. Back in 2002 Joaquín Lavín of the ultra-right wing Independent Democratic Union (UDI in Spanish) met with Fidel Castro for ten hours praising the regime's health care system but did not have time to meet with Cuban dissidents.

Meanwhile the Chilean Christian Democrats who are on the center left and in coalition with the socialists have had a consistent policy in defense of human rights in Cuba both in and out of power supporting dissidents and human rights resolutions taking the dictatorship to task for its dismal record.

This demonstrates that respect for human rights is non-partisan and one must pay attention not only to what is said but more importantly to what is done. This past Sunday, Felipe Kast stood in solidarity with human rights defenders in Cuba and received the same treatment that Cuban democrats suffer at the hands of the Cuban state security services.

Felipe Kast marching with Ladies in White on September 6, 2015 in Cuba

Student Movement presents the motives for their protests

"Without Freedom, nothing." - Venezuelan Student Movement

Student and civil protests that are taking place in Venezuela are the result of the systematic destruction of our country at the hands of a communist regime and the complicity of those who benefit from the system. Impoverishment , insecurity , shortages and all the problems that beset the country, not derived from the inefficiency of the government, they are the typical policies of these regimes. Its main objective is the spiritual ruin and slavery of peoples.

On Youth Day, glorious anniversary for all Venezuelan students, we raised the volume of our protest and several compatriots gave their lives for it. Today we reclaim the patriotism of these young people, the hundreds arrested and tortured, unifying the entire Nation around Liberty. In such historical circumstances, responsibility calls us all: we call on all the Venezuelan people to remain in the streets, it is necessary to restore the constitutional order.

Being this the nature of our goals, the Student Movement considers, as a first step, the resignation of Nicolas Maduro and his entire cabinet. Likewise, our State can not continue under the direction of castro communism: We demand the immediate expulsion of all Cuban agents from our institutions.

Our resistance is legitimate, no ruler has the right to assume the reins of the lives of those he is governing. The government is simply delegated the administration of the public: never to be lighthouses of the existence of citizenship. This that we describe occurs in a legitimate government, our disobedience is justified even more so with an illegitimate government like this. It is absolutely impossible to dialogue with leaders who have usurped functions that do not belong to them.

The Student Movement does not recognize institutions that attempt against the life of its citizens. That is why we do not dialogue or negotiate Freedom with communists; that would mean a betrayal of Venezuela and ourselves as free and independent beings. That is why our call extends to all Venezuelans, at stake the future of us all. Together we can reverse the process of political, economic, social and cultural decay that this regime has led us into. It is vital to overcome, otherwise, we will not be the masters of our fate.

Without Liberty, nothing. 

Texto original en castellano

"When a law is unjust, the correct thing is to disobey"

Las protestas estudiantiles y civiles que se están desarrollando en Venezuela son producto de la destrucción sistemática de nuestro país por obra de un régimen comunista y la mirada cómplice de aquellos que se benefician del sistema. El empobrecimiento, la inseguridad, la escasez y todos los problemas que agobian al país, no derivan de la ineficiencia del gobierno; son políticas típicas de estos regímenes. Su principal objetivo es la ruina espiritual y la esclavitud de los pueblos.

En el Día de la Juventud, aniversario glorioso para todos los estudiantes venezolanos, elevamos el volumen de nuestra protesta; varios compañeros dieron la vida por ello. Hoy reivindicamos el patriotismo de estos jóvenes, los cientos de detenidos y torturados, unificando a toda la Nación en torno a la Libertad. En tan históricas circunstancias, la responsabilidad nos convoca a todos: llamamos a toda la población venezolana a mantenerse en las calles, es necesaria la restitución del orden constitucional.

Siendo de esta naturaleza nuestros objetivos, el Movimiento Estudiantil considera como primer paso la renuncia de Nicolás Maduro y todo su gabinete. De la misma forma, nuestro Estado no puede continuar bajo la dirección del castro comunismo: exigimos la inmediata expulsión de todos los agentes cubanos de nuestras instituciones.

Nuestra resistencia es legítima; ningún gobernante tiene el derecho de asumir las riendas de la vida de los seres que gobierna. El gobierno es un simple delegado en la administración de lo público: jamás serán faros del existir de la ciudadanía. Esto que describimos ocurre con un gobierno legítimo; nuestra desobediencia se justifica aún más con un gobierno ilegítimo como éste. Es absolutamente imposible el diálogo con gobernantes que han usurpado funciones que no le pertenecen.

El Movimiento Estudiantil no reconoce instituciones que atenten en contra de la vida de sus ciudadanos. Es por ello que no dialogamos ni negociamos la Libertad con comunistas; esto significaría una traición a Venezuela y a nosotros mismos, como seres libres e independientes. Es por ello que nuestra convocatoria se extiende a todos los venezolanos, está en juego el futuro de todos nosotros. Juntos lograremos revertir el proceso de descomposición política, económica, social y cultural al que este régimen nos ha llevado. Es vital vencer, de lo contrario, no seremos dueños de nuestro destino.

Sin Libertad, nada.

"Mom, went to fight for Venezuela. If I don't return I left with her."

http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/Movimiento-Estudiantil-emite-comunicado-nacion_0_358164451.html  

Reclaiming Dialogue from Orwellian Newspeak

Courage is what it takes to stand up and speak; courage is also what it takes to sit down and listen. - Winston Churchill 

If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear. - George Orwell

In July of 2004 Bishop Agustin Roman wrote about the necessity of rescuing, a word that he described as beautiful, but that had been twisted by the dictatorship in Cuba stating:

"It's good that to start this effort, the true meaning of the word dialogue be rescued. We have all witnessed the misrepresentation of this beautiful word, thanks to the manipulations of the dictatorship that has wanted to use it for its own purposes, and also thanks to some complying with the Castro lexicon, perhaps without noticing where the misrepresentation comes from, seem content to have them steal the dictionary, the same ones who previously stole our homeland."

The word dialogue has a long history and to have arisen in the West with Plato and the Greeks over 2,400 years ago. The root meaning of the word dialogue is formed by two words dia and logos which literally means  'two way flow/exchange' of meaning. Dialogue by definition can be applied to literature, drama, music, philosophy and for the focus of this essay in an exchange of ideas and opinions or in a purely political context: "a discussion between representatives of parties to a conflict that is aimed at resolution."

Unfortunately, in our modern era where words often lose their meaning or are twisted to suit particular agendas it appears that the word dialogue has become another victim of Orwellian Newspeak.

In this case "Dialogue is Normalization" that is when two parties meet in order to supposedly represent two parties in a conflict representing their position and interests but in reality one of the parties has invited who will represent their counterparts in the dialogue. This is done in order to promote their particular agenda which often in the case of those in power means normalizing and making permanent injustices committed while legitimizing systematic human rights violations. +972  Magazine offers the following definition of "normalization" which is often times what dialogues with a dictatorship can degenerate into: 

"It is helpful to think of normalization as a “colonization of the mind,” whereby the oppressed subject comes to believe that the oppressor’s reality is the only “normal” reality that must be subscribed to, and that the oppression is a fact of life that must be coped with. Those who engage in normalization either ignore this oppression, or accept it as the status quo that can be lived with." 

There is a spectrum of "normalization" as dialogue at one end you'll find the Brookings Institute that seeks to "overcome obstacles to dialogue" which in practice means acceding to the demands of the dictatorship on a whole host of issues then at the other extreme end is the example of Magda Montiel Davis who at a gathering of Cuban exiles, organized by the Cuban regime, in Havana in order to meet with them and "dialogue" exclaimed to Fidel Castro: "thank-you for what you have done for my people, you have been a great teacher for me."  Montiel Davis then kissed the old dictator on the cheek. The encounter of Montiel Davis with Castro was filmed by regime agents and later sold to Miami broadcasters. 

If you are to represent, as in the case of the Brookings Institution, U.S. interests in a dialogue with Cuba or, as in the case of Magda Montiel Davis, the Cuban exile community then one must represent the parties of the conflict and not seek to ingratiate oneself with the adversary while abandoning your parties positions. Also the gathering should be in a neutral location and each side should select the parties to represent them. In the case of the gathering attended by Ms. Montiel Davis all sides of the conversation were selected by the dictatorship. That is not a dialogue but a sham.

The other danger is to attempt to be "neutral." Arch Bishop Desmond Tutu ably explains the inadequacy of neutrality in a situation of injustice when he observes that:

 “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor. If an elephant has its foot on the tail of a mouse and you say that you are neutral, the mouse will not appreciate your neutrality.”

Palestinian activists, for example, argue that "dialogue" stands in the way of justice with their conflict with Israel, but one would hope that the Palestinian diaspora would favor an actual dialogue that represents their interests and grievances. Naturally, a dialogue that embraces their adversary while abandoning their claims is another matter. Or to paraphrase the Palestinians into the Cuban context: 

Dialogue would only serve to sanitize the oppressive nature of the Castro regime. Instead, we seek to build the growing movement of people that will bring an end to the dictatorship, that will help restore human and civil rights.

Dialogue redefined as normalization and normalization redefined as caving into the adversary without addressing the underlying positions of the conflict is a recipe for stagnation that benefits those in power and in the end prolongs the conflict. On the other hand a dialogue where both parties meet on an equal playing field in a frank discussion can bear fruit.

Back in 2004, in Miami, Agustin Roman spoke of both the importance and the power of real dialogue while rejecting Orwellian newspeak: 

We begin, then, claiming the Cuban people's right to speak in possession of the real value of the words, that is the only way for good men to understand each other. That's what I would also like to see with the word liberty, with the word justice, with the word democracy, the word patriotism, and with the word peace. That never again those who hijack the essence of these words and deny our people, induce us to use them in a sense different from the goodness of its true meaning. Pray to Him who has the words of eternal life, who is the word of God made flesh, not to allow that they confuse us with the words once again.

Now in 2012, in Cuba, Cuban pro-democracy leader Antonio Rodiles offers a framework of dialogue for the Cuban context which until now, the dictatorship has rejected that Agustin Roman embraced:

Visualizing and working in support of a transition towards democracy in the convoluted scenario in which we live is a process that implies, above all, political and intellectual maturity, honesty, and a high level of civic awareness. We need to understand that such dynamics would not involve just one axis, just one angle. It is impossible to imagine a transition that does not take into account Cubans in Cuba today who hold different points of view. And a transition without full participation of those Cubans outside the Island, who constitute an essential part of our nation, is also inconceivable. It is not possible to outline a transition without the workers, intellectuals, professionals and entrepreneurs both inside and outside the country.

What will you tell him?

A Call for Real Freedom in Cuba Now

The document below, Enough of deceptions, FREEDOM NOW, was authored by Oswaldo Payá who is based in Havana, Cuba and is a leader within the Christian Liberation Movement that authored the Varela Project and has had a huge impact both inside and outside of Cuba with the signatures of more than 25,000 Cubans inside of Cuba signing a petition for the restoration of human rights in Cuba.

In this essay he makes reference to the conference “A Dialogue between Cubans” which is the third part of a series of meetings organized by the Cuban Research Institute based out of Florida International University focused around the document: The Cuban Diaspora during the XXI century.

The first two meetings were held in Miami on October 10, 2011 and in Madrid on March 13, 2012. This third meeting was held in Havana beginning on Thursday, April 18, 2012. Listening to videos from the two first gatherings that places the Cuban problem first and foremost into a question of US/Cuba relations and the belligerence of the exile community towards the Cuban regime and the lack of rights of migrants is placed in second place. It seeks to look at changes made between totalitarian regimes in China and Vietnam and their respective Diasporas. This ignores what in reality is the great obstacle to normalized relations between Cubans on and off the island: a totalitarian dictatorship that represses all Cubans.

Monsignor Agustín Román and Oswaldo Payá (2003)

Enough of deceptions, FREEDOM NOW

by Oswaldo Payá

The government of the military regime has denied Cubans the universal right to freedom of travel for more than half a century and continues denying this right without any transparent prospects of change. With the greatest cruelty, it has torn millions of Cuban families apart and it still continues doing it.

Government spokesmen for months have speculated about possible migration changes and some, as Mr. Ricardo Alarcon, President of the National Assembly , justify the prison state in which they maintain Cuba, saying they cannot lose the “human capital”. This expression, characteristic of slavers, reflects the views of those who hold power in Cuba over the human beings, whom they consider their capital, their property and do not treat them as persons with dignity and rights. For the regime the people of Cuba are serfs and not citizens.

If it is true that the Government will make changes to immigration policies, why won’t they inform the people of what changes will take place and when? They despise the people so much that they don’t even respect their right to know. Or is it that the proposed changes are not the rights that we demand in The Heredia Project?

The Heredia Project or Law of National Reunification and for the end of discrimination against Cubans in Cuba, is a citizen proposal based in the Constitution that once and for all, through a legal, clear and transparent manner guarantees:

• The right for all Cubans, be they professionals or not or technicians, to freely enter and leave their country, without permission to exit or enter, for as long as the person decides, without taxes, or forfeitures, or the plundering of property, without paying for each month they live abroad a ransom to the government, paying all transactions in national currency and eliminating forever the punishment that is the “final departure” status assigned by the regime, which imposes banishment and exile for those choose to live outside of Cuba. An end to the humiliating letters of liberation as a condition to travel to doctors and other professionals.
• The restitution of all the rights of citizens to the Cuban Diaspora and their children as they are full Cubans, without exclusions and the end of all the restrictions and requirements to obtain permits, so that Cubans living outside Cuba can enter their country whenever they want and for as long as they want and live in their homeland if they choose.
• End to the humiliations, internal deportations and mistreatment against the Cubans that in our own country try to escape poverty and the lack of opportunities, transfer themselves to different provinces.
• End to all inequalities and limitations of access to positions, and of exclusions for political and ideological reasons and removal of other privations such as the right to the Internet.

The regime pursues with its full repressive forces activists who collect signatures for The Heredia Project while talking of possible migration reforms. Some make it easier for them when they make echo of this deception against the people. They accompany the regime in this despotic speculation through statements, publications, conferences and the propagation of doctrines in which they call for a vote of trust for the government of Raul Castro and not the rights, the vote and trust in people.

The conference “A Dialogue between Cubans” that begins today in the Sacerdotal House of Havana, is organized and led by those in Cuba, who not only despise the internal nonviolent opposition, but also deny its existence, explicitly, in their publications; they advance each time more and more in the tunnel of alignment with the lies of the regime and with the proposed continuation of totalitarianism, in which the privileged in power have set their mind to. They are encouraging the oligarchy to continue denying Cubans their rights. In this manner, those who enjoy the privilege of having a voice and protected spaces, conspire against the true reconciliation and peace that can only be achieved if it respects all the rights of all the Cubans, their freedom of expression and association and that free elections are held. We will continue demanding these rights even if we we are alone facing these tactics and conspiracies against popular sovereignty.

These “organizers” speak with the concepts of “the prospects for a relationship between Cuban immigrants and their country of origin, referencing the process of economic reforms or modernizations that have been initiated in Cuba.” We denounce that these are the same terms used by the regime to deny the full condition of Cubans to those who have left our country in search of the freedom that does not exist in Cuba and to those that the regime maintains in the condition of outcasts, as it treats those who currently leave under the category of “definitive exit”. This category of “definitive exit” is employed even in the latest Housing Law, issued only a few months ago. What then is the perspective?

The Christian Liberation Movement in a declaration emitted last March 30th states: The Diaspora is a Diaspora because they are Cuban exiles to which the regime denied rights as it denies them to all Cubans. It is not in that part of oppression, without rights, and transparency that the Diaspora has to be inserted, that would be part of fraudulent change.(1)

Only in the context of a culture of fear and repression with which the regime silences the people are they able to implement the painful maneuver that includes some who take political positions from the Church, others from their intellectual and media show cases, others from their economic interests and others distancing themselves from the Diaspora, so that with their participation contribute to this fraudulent change that is the project that the government clearly expresses in the phrase that says: ”changes for more socialism.”

Although totalitarianism has been sustained for more than fifty years, but it has not subdued the hearts of the Cubans, nor can it fabricate a people to the measure of a regime without freedom, nor a church or a Diaspora in the function of their power. Enough of despotism, of doctrines, of excluding and conditioned conferences, of maneuvers and tactics of distraction to justify and consolidate a fraudulent change that is the change without rights, which leaves the majority of the poor getting poorer and leaves all Cubans without freedom. Cubans in the Diaspora and those of us who live in Cuba, are one people, victims of the same oppressive regime and we have the same hope and the same claim to liberty.

ALL CUBANS, ALL BROTHERS AND NOW FREEDOM.

Christian Liberation Movement
http://www.oswaldopaya.org


Havana, Cuba April 19, 2012

(1) See. CHANGE NOT FRAUD, YES TO LIBERATION Havana, March 30, 2012. http://www.oswaldopaya.org

Cuban Blogger: Concessions, Convenience, & Exits Disguised as Dialogue

This entry is a double copy. The following text was written by Claudia Cadelo and translated to English by good Samaritans at http://hemosoido.com/ and reproduced by Marc Masferrer on his blog Uncommon Sense which inspired me to do the same. She has summed up in a mere 498 words the zeitgeist of the moment in Cuba. It is said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery and I hope that it is taken in that spirit.

The One Who Understands Nothing is Me

"Don't believe, don't fear, don't beg."

Alexander Solzhenitsyn

The last days have been dizzying, torn between joy and uncertainty. I didn’t say goodbye to Pablo Pacheco because he sneaked out of the country, I haven’t been able to talk with Pedro Argüelle and I still have my eyes fixed on the image of Fariñas, frozen in the moment when the grimace on his face proved that to take a sip of liquid was, for him, Pure Misery.

I felt a little disconnected, running here and there, from Pinar del Rio to Santa Clara, finding out about everything going on through a flow of text messages that we managed to keep going between some friends. I have seen many people with the faith that one day we will live in a free country, I was struck by the network of solidarity outside Coco’s hospital, a score of his loyal friends and colleagues desperately watching the ups and downs of his health, turning to the clueless, like me, who arrived three hours before the visit, bringing everything they have, and that is: almost nothing. I sincerely regret that not a single journalist has taken the trouble, until now, to talk with these people who for four months, silently, have cared for the life of the freest man in Cuba.

It is sometimes unsettling to see so much courage and the kindness in people, like the mother of Fariñas, and so much indolence and hypocrisy in articles like this*. There are times when it is preferable not to connect to the Internet.

It bothers me deeply, horribly, to see the sleight of hand that has been shown to the voices of civil society in pursuit of a policy so opportunistic towards those who live in my country today: the release of the innocents. At what point in history was the dialog between the Church and the Cuban government, and with Moratinos left as mediator? When will the prisoners who want to live in Cuba be released? Why, in an international airport, don’t “free people” board the plane like the rest of the passengers? If they can come to Cuba whenever they want, why couldn’t they say goodbye to their friends today, or stop and have a cup of coffee at home before leaving the island?

Today for the first time I saw José Luis García Paneque’s face in a photo on the Internet, my feelings are indescribable, this post would become absurd if I indulged all my questions. I hate to say this, but so far only one word describes the achievement of this unique dialog that excludes the protagonists and victims of one of the two parties: Exile.

When at least one of the ex-prisoners of conscience released in Madrid puts his feet on Cuban soil again, when Pedro Argüelles, Eduardo Díaz and Regis Iglesias are in their homes, when the laypersons Dagoberto Valdes and Osvaldo Payá are invited to the negotiations between the government and the Catholic Church, and can express their opinions on equal terms, then we will be engaged in DIALOGUE; until that time we are only talking about concessions, convenience and emergency exits.

* Translator’s note: The link is to an article, in Spanish, titled, “Dissident Cubans in Spain Face an Uncertain Future”

Cuban society: the monologue disguised as dialogue

Cuban society: the monologue disguised as dialogue

"Cuban society is not white or black, it's not a matter of zero or 100."
Rafael Hernández, Cuban professor and Temas editor

"I look around and it is the other blockade which affects us most, that of censorship, intolerance and punishment to those that opine differently."
Yoani Sanchez, Philologist and blogger



There have been two events over the past two weeks that I would've liked to have attended. The first was at Florida International University two Thursdays ago. The second this past Thursday in Havana at the Fresa y Chocolate Cultural Center.

On Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rafael Hernández a University of Havana professor and editor of Temas delivered a lecture at FIU, according to The Miami Herald titled: Catharsis or Debate? Critical Thinking in the Public Sphere of Cuba Today. According to the Miami Herald the professor argued that "catharsis" or emotional arguments leads to "a denial of alternatives, personal reprobation, verbal aggression . . . a monologue rather than a dialogue." This is a redefinition of the word that flies in the face of thousands of years of history beginning with Aristotle and sets catharsis on its head.

Casually looking at the definition of the word it refers to the "purification or purgation of the emotions through art" that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension by affording its expression leads to the "elimination of a complex." Psychologists say that catharsis offers a way to vent feelings in an appropriate manner. One approach to catharsis in the realm of theater uses negative experiences actively reliving them on stage in order that "participants can develop the creativity needed to find new solutions. " Perhaps a better title would have begun with "debate or dialogue" rather than "catharsis or debate" although in either case all of the terms: debate, dialogue, and catharsis have much to offer within the Cuban context and should not be demonized or marginalized.

When Professor Hernández argues that "If it was only Fidel Castro, it would not be a problem" referring to the denial of alternatives he ignores a half century of history not to mention constitutional and penal law. Now if what he means by this answer is that if others were not following orders and that having the brothers Castro spouting orders with no one to carry them out would end the problem then I would agree, but if the argument is that there are many who deny alternatives and engage in their own monologues and are unable to come together with a constructive program I would respectfully disagree.

In Cuba it is not a question of zero or 100 but rather one or nothing. Either you accept as laid out in Article 5 of the Cuban constitution that the Communist Party of Cuba is "the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organizes and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society" or you do not. No other political party is legally permitted or recognized in the current system. It is one party or nothing.

Furthermore the term nothing or zero applies to the freedoms recognized for Cubans who are in opposition to communism and advocate an alternative socio-economic-political system according to Article 62 of Cuba's constitution along with the warning that attempts to exercise those freedoms to advocate alternatives is "punished by law."

Professor Hernández's swipe at Yoani Sánchez and her Generation Y blog not meeting his vision of critical debate stating that "by definition, it is not an analytical debate ...unfortunately, it has more of catharsis than debate. Sorry,'' and arguing that there is "too much cyber-chancleteo'' [ gutter-level discourse] was both unfortunate and perhaps indicated a lack of familiarity with the material. Yoani's blog has been blocked from viewing in Cuba by the dictatorship.

This brings me to the second event I would have liked to have attended. On Thursday, October 29, 2009 the magazine Temas organized a debate about the Internet at the Fresa y Chocolate Cultural Center. Several bloggers, among them Claudia Cadelo, attempted to participate and were denied access with the phrase: “The institution reserves the right of admission.” Nevertheless clad with a blonde wig Yoani Sanchez was able to get in and briefly participate. This is an exerpt of her account of the event:

"A young writer asked to speak and lamented that so many had been prevented from entering; then someone came and mentioned terms such as “enemy,” “dangerous,” and “defend ourselves.” When finally I was called, I took the opportunity to ask what relationship there is between the limitations in bandwidth and the many websites censored for the Cuban public."

The questions she raises are concrete and refer to problems that impact most Cubans, and the actions by the organizers to restrict participation by those with a different point of view indicate a monologue disguised as a debate.



Instead of monologues disguised as debates or dialogues and ad hominem attacks disguised as detached criticism the internet offers a virtual space for catharsis, debate, and dialogue which can be the basis of a more open, pluralistic, and democratic conversation on Cuba that in the realm of ideas brings an end to the legally enforced totalitarian monologue.