Tag Archives: Cuba

Cuban Troops in Syria: Another Foreign Policy Crisis

The Institute for Cuban and Cuban American studies recently disclosed information according to which Cuban troops are helping the Russian/Iranian effort to save the Assad Government in Syria and establish their influence in the Middle East.

According to the report, Cuban military operatives are advising President Bashar al-Assad’s military and may even be preparing to man Russian-made tanks.

This report was later confirmed by the White House, acknowledging that Cuban troops have been training in Russia.

An important question is why Cuban troops are putting themselves in harm’s way when the Russian army should be adequate to face this military challenge. Why would they do it now?  A quarter of a century after the end of the cold war; a time when Cubans were willing puppets of the Soviet Union and sent their troops to places like Angola to fight for global communism? Why would they do it now that relations with the U.S. are on the path to normalization?

There are a number of reasons we can suggest as possibilities.

First, Syria, as a natural ally of Iran, has been close to the countries of the Bolivarian Alliance (ALBA-Cuba, Nicaragua, Bolivia, and Venezuela).

Iran has been an ally to the countries of ALBA, particularly Venezuela. Since Assad’s well-being is in the vital interest of Iran, Cuba is happy to assist a friend of the “region”. After all, the relationship with Iran first encouraged by Chavez and now led by the current Venezuelan government has been reinforced in the last two decades as Iran continues to expand its influence in Latin America.

Secondly, in 1990 the Soviet Union ceased to provide Cuba with 6 billion dollars annually because the Cold War was over and the USSR needed to recover economically. Therefore, Cuban soldiers were no longer needed to be cannon fodder for the ideological proxy battles of the Cold War.

Although Russia is not fighting a cold war any more, it is in fact competing with the U.S. for spheres of influence.  Now an opportunity has opened up for Russia as Western powers stayed away from the civil war in Syria, timidly supporting the war against the Islamic State (ISIS) and abandoning any other strategic goal.

As non-communist Russia seeks to recover its lost world influence, it has called Cuba again, perhaps appealing to the nostalgia of the good old days. Those days were days of glory for Cuba. Cuba was a Soviet proxy, sending troops to fight against Israel during the Yom Kippur war, training terrorists of the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) in Southern Lebanon, including the group “Black September” responsible for the 1972 massacre of 11 Israeli athletes; fighting in Angola; helping support the communist Ethiopian government that caused a huge famine in the 1980’s; helping support the bloodthirsty government of Idi Amin Dada in Uganda and Muhammad Gadhafi in Libya; training Iraqis in the art of repression against their Kurdish population; sending divisions to South Yemen and  the border of Somalia; training Latin American guerillas and promoting subversion in the region, including against democratic regimes, especially the democratic regime of Romulo Betancourt in Venezuela.

For those who need to be reminded, Cuba also offered its soil to place Soviet-made nuclear missiles almost causing a third world war (Fidel Castro still expresses regret that the Soviets withdrew their missiles). Furthermore, Cuba enjoyed the status of a country that supported liberation movements all over the third world becoming the leader of the non-aligned movement in 1979.

For Castro, the idealist and communist romantic, all of these activities were and are more attractive than the few visas, traveling relief measures, the potential lifting of the embargo and other material benefits the U.S. has to offer.  The Russians are providing them a role on the world stage, a second historical opportunity to experience again the good old years when they were global leaders, acclaimed by the anti-imperialist, anti-colonialist world.

This feeling is reinforced by the fact that since the beginning of the Bolivarian Revolution, there has been a leftist revival in Latin America supported not only by radical regimes such as the ALBA countries but by many other countries in the region including the two largest: Brazil and Argentina. The restoration of Cuba to the community of Latin American nations had full support in the region and Cuba became a symbol of the new era. The region definitely perceived the reintegration of Cuba as a vindication of the Cuban regime, very much in contrast to the 1980’s and 90’s when the region welcomed the restoration of democracy.

What Russia and the region are giving Cuba is far more than any material reward the U.S can offer.

Against this background, the empowered Castro saw the normalization process as American capitulation.

Even if we apply the materialistic logic of Obama’s reasoning that Cubans will appreciate the value and benefit of a good relation with the U.S., the Cuban government is not the Cuban people. The Castro brothers have kept their rule over 11 million Cubans in total disregard for their basic needs. In Cuba people go to prison for eating more food than the law permits. Now, the 2,000 Cuban troops fighting in Syria are currently at risk of being caught by ISIS and beheaded, burned alive or drowned.  Cuba is not about the people. It is about the ideological elite.

Therefore, we should not expect Cuba to feel obliged under the terms of normalization to display a different behavior.

Cuba’s alliance with Russia is also related to Russia’s increasing penetration in Latin America, a region where the U.S. is losing influence and leverage. Russia has reinforced relations with the ALBA countries, which we have covered here in more detail.

Russia is not just interfering in the fragile and volatile Middle East but it is also taking advantage of the anti-American environment that predominates in Latin America.

Cuba’s troops, fighting in Syria alongside Iran and Hezbollah, are a mirror of this geo-political dramatic reality the U.S. is now facing in two major and important strategic regions.

Textbook Recruitment: Cuban Intelligence in American Academia

With the establishment of formal diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, a section of the Castro regime that does its best work in the shadows is now preparing to increase its profile: the intelligence apparatus, long acknowledged as one of the most effective and best in the world of espionage. Far from falling victim to the disintegrated Cuban economy, the Dirección General de Inteligencia (General Directorate of Intelligence or DI) spares no cost in its pursuit of its single-minded goal of penetrating all aspects of American society in order to protect the communist regime in Havana.

One key component of its operations is the recruitment and grooming of operatives in the world of academia. Professors, researchers, scientists, students, and anyone connected to universities identified by the DI as targets are assessed and developed as potential spies. Emphasis is placed on institutions nearby the Cuban regime presence in America: New York (UN Mission, which is virtually all staffed by DI officers), Washington (former interests section and now Embassy, a dream come true for DI operatives who now enjoy full diplomatic immunity), and Miami (traditional home of the Cuban exile community and anti-Castro organizations).

In a declassified debriefing of former Cuban intelligence officer José Cohen by the FBI, he details how the DI will analyze a published work by a professor or student, locate an opening based on ideological or emotional factors, and then contact the target under the guise of educational cooperation and/or research. The Cuban assumption is that the targets will enter or have access to US government institutions and materials, and from this base they mold the target into an agent.

Time is no object, as an operation targeting an individual will often take years before bearing fruit. Witness the cases of Ana Belen Montes, a Defense Intelligence Agency analyst who spied for Havana for sixteen years, and State Department analyst Walter Kendall Myers, who provided classified material to his Cuban handlers for nearly thirty years. These cases are just the tip of the iceberg, as it defies reason that these individuals were not part of a larger spy network.

More recently, with the establishment of diplomatic relations, the next task is the dismantling of the embargo. A potential opening comes in the form of spring break and cruise ship packages marketed to American college students, again under the pretense of educational and cultural exchange. While tourism is still banned under US policy, the DI can only eagerly welcome the easing of restrictions, as potential young recruits flood the white sand beaches of Varadero.

 

 

 

Why the US government is on track to ‘normalizing’ ISIS

How long will it take the United States to recognize the Islamic State as a legitimate actor?

That may sound ridiculous. After all, ISIS is a barbaric and sociopathic band of terrorists who proudly highlight their brutality over the Internet. Unfortunately, recent history suggests this doesn’t disqualify them, as horrific as it sounds, from eventual recognition.

Since before 9/11, the Taliban laid claim to numerous terror attacks on civilian populations throughout Afghanistan. They harbored Osama bin Laden, and since the beginning of Operation Enduring Freedom, they’ve been directly responsible for the deaths of more than 2,000 American troops.

Yet in January, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest cryptically explained that the Taliban was not a terrorist group but instead falls under a “different classification.”

Earnest’s verbal gymnastics were deployed in the service of explaining away the president’s decision to trade five members of the Taliban for the release of American soldier-captive Bowe Bergdahl.

Hamas is an openly anti-Semitic terrorist organization that has claimed responsibility for the deaths of hundreds of innocent civilians, including several Americans. Since its creation, the Gaza-based Hamas has been dedicated to the destruction of Israel and the murder of Jews. Hamas is brutally repressive toward women and gays; they have a tendency to savagely drag dead bodies through the streets.

Last year, Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas swore in a new unity government that incorporated Hamas-appointed ministers. Instead of cutting off financial support to the new government, as required by US law, the Obama administration jumped through hoops to legitimize the new government. Officials said they would continue supporting the Palestinian government because the new ministers were “technocrats” that “don’t represent . . . hard-core Hamas leadership.”

The legitimacy granted to Hamas by this administration is a reflection of the trend held by many pro-Palestinian protesters who now brazenly chant, “we are Hamas!” through the streets of US cities such as Miami.

Cuba has a long history of human-rights abuse. The Cuban government regularly harasses and imprisons dissidents and has been a state sponsor of terrorism for decades. Cuba continues to serve as a safe haven for terrorists and maintains close ties to both North Korea and Iran.

In 2013, Cuba was caught sending weapons to North Korea. It aids terrorist groups like the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, Iranian proxy Hezbollah and the Basque Fatherland of Liberty (ETA).

Despite this behavior, the administration still decided to take Cuba off the list of State Sponsors of Terrorism and has begun the process of normalizing the relationship between the United States and Cuba.

The State Department justified this removal by stating that “Cuba has not provided any support for international terrorism during the previous six-months” and citing vague promises that they “will not support acts of international terrorism in the future.”

So to recap, within this past year we have stopped referring to the Taliban as terrorists, provided de facto recognition and funding to Hamas and have opened up to the repressive terror-sponsoring Cuban government.

Why should we assume that ISIS will be treated any differently than these groups?

As each day passes, ISIS solidifies its presence in the region. Sure, ISIS commits terrible atrocities. The group regularly — and indiscriminately — beheads innocent people; rapes women and sells them as sex slaves and employs children as executioners.

But its leaders have undeniably been working to establish the Islamic State as, well, as a functioning state. They issue identification cards, pave roads, pick up trash, operate power stations and offer social-welfare programs.

ISIS has carved out its territory by filling the Middle East’s power vacuums, and are thus, in some places, the only game in town. How long before the international community recognizes the ISIS government?

The past precedent of legitimizing various terrorist groups and repressive dictatorships make this all too real of an issue. It’s imperative that the United States stops this trajectory of providing legitimacy to these regimes and turns back the ISIS tide, or we may one day soon be debating the opening of an embassy to the Islamic State in what used to be Iraq.

A Hostile NSA on Steroids in Cuba

During the Cold War, the Kremlin operated a sophisticated signals intelligence-collection facility at Lourdes, Cuba. It enabled the KGB to eavesdrop on government, military, commercial and private communications in much of the eastern United States.

When the Soviet Union’s break-up ended Moscow’s subsidies for Cuba, the Lourdes “sigint” operation was among the casualties.

Now, they’re baaack. Reportedly, the Russians and Chinese will be spying on millions of Americans from Cuba. Think the worst of what the NSA has been accused of – on steroids.

Unfortunately, there is no sign that Team Obama even asked for Lourdes to be closed in exchange for U.S. diplomatic normalization and other concessions to the Castro regime. Sound familiar? This is the sort of negotiating malpractice now underway with Iran.

Will Congress hold President Obama accountable – in either case?

Is Castro About to Solve Obama’s Guantanamo Problem?

Breitbart reports that as President Obama this week announced the reopening of the U.S. Embassy in Havana, Cuba – which will signal the official resumption of diplomatic relations between the two countries – the Castro regime is insisting that full normalization of relations will require, among other things, the transfer of Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, which the regime defines as “illegally occupied territory.”

Given the nature of the Castro regime, it’s not exactly a stretch of the imagination to assume that if the Obama administration did in fact agree to turn over Gitmo to the Cuban government, the remaining terrorist detainees being held there would be turned loose not long after the base changed hands.

Turning the base over to the Castros would therefore help Obama achieve two misguided policies at once: Solidify normalization of US-Cuba relations without any meaningful concessions, guarantees, or reforms from Havana; and shut down Gitmo along the way.  While it would be an exaggeration to assert that Obama’s Gitmo problem was the reason for premature normalization with Cuba, it’s hard to deny that his Cuba policy could give him an opening to cross Gitmo off his presidential bucket-list and send the detainees back onto the battlefield.

It’s true that the administration stated previously, during negotiations with Cuba earlier this year, that returning Gitmo to the regime was “not on the table.”  But as we’ve seen on Iran and a range of other issues, red lines don’t exactly have a whole lot of meaning with this administration.  Don’t be surprised if Obama eviscerates this one.

Not A Great Start At The 45th General Assembly Of The Organization of American States

As the Organization of American States (OAS) gathered in Washington for its 45th annual General Assembly (GA) on June 15 and 16th, a number of important issues are coming into question.

First it is important to point out that it is the first GA in the aftermath of the normalization process that began last December. Secondly, the OAS has a new Secretary General (SG).

What so far has characterized the new SG of the OAS, former Uruguayan foreign minister, Luis Almagro, is that he has spoken ceaselessly of bringing change and modernization to the organization. Most importantly, he has spoken about promoting dialogue, democracy, human rights and transparency.

However, all that took place before and during the General Assembly suggest a few clues about the contradiction of the SG and the organization as a whole. A few days before the opening of the GA, Almagro wrote an article published in several newspapers in Spanish. He pointed out that the OAS needs to be the institution in charge of expanding rights in the region for as many people as possible. “We must not compromise when it comes to the issue of human rights and democracy. There will not be double standards in my Administration. We need to be a leading example in terms of transparency, tolerance, dialogue and accountability before we place demands on others”. Likewise, Almagro pointed out that the region needs to be part of the solution of global problems including climate change, religious intolerance and hunger. He also criticized the idea of creating mandates that are never implemented and end up being nothing but “a piece of paper”.

Yet, Almagro, in his speech, was not specific about the problems he mentioned and gave few details. He justified this by claiming he could not be specific because most of the meetings of the OAS are private and not open to the public now.

This was not a great beginning for a man who promises more transparency. It should be the right of the people of the Americas to know what is happening at an organization that allegedly serves their interests.

There is more. During the GA, the OAS elected five new judges to become part of the Inter- American Court for Human Rights. The process of nomination and appointment was carried out in secrecy, outside the public eye. One of the judges already confirmed by the OAS is Eugenio Zaffaroni, strongly supported by the Argentinean president, Cristina Kirchner. Zaffaroni was associated with the last military dictatorship and gave judicial legitimacy to some key decisions taken by the regime. However, the real challenge that Zaffaroni presents is his loyalty to Kirchner, who supports the elected authoritarian regimes of the ALBA countries and has shown strong admiration for the late Hugo Chavez. Zaffaroni was elected by 18 out of a total of 23 countries. Time will tell if Zaffaroni remains loyal to the mandate of the Inter- American Court or to the President that nominated him.

Another judge confirmed by the OAS is the Ecuadorian, Patricio Pazmino Freire. Pazmino is the president of the Constitutional Court in Ecuador. This presents a major conflict of interest since he is loyal to Ecuadorian president, Rafael Correa, who is an open enemy of the Inter-American Court. Pazmino was elected with the support of 22 countries. The Court criticized Correa for his persecution and oppression of the press and since then Correa has stubbornly tried to remove the power and authority of the Court.

Thus, the Inter- American Court changed more than half of its judges in a grossly opaque process that was contrary to the previous processes where candidates openly presented their credentials and proposals. Almagro supported this reversal of transparency. As a result, we now have a judge that worked against human rights becoming part of the most important judicial body and so far the most honorable of the Americas. This raises the suspicion that the intention might have been to weaken the court to protect or at least appease democracy violators such as Nicolas Maduro, Rafael Correa and their supporters such as Cristina Kirchner. This looks far from promising.

More than transparency this sounds like official institutional corruption.

Speaking about human rights, one day before the GA, Almagro received petitions asking him to say something about the critical human rights situation experienced in Venezuela and Cuba.

Almagro responded in a very ambiguous way to these petitions and to representatives of civil society present in the room with him. He claimed that the OAS must say “mea culpa” for 47 years of exclusion of Cuba”. “The OAS cannot exclude countries and certainly not when these countries are trying to find their way through a social pact”. Almagro clearly refer here to the socialist system that Cuba created and affirms that Cuba’s expulsion therefore was a historical injustice that needs to be urgently repaired. But when Rosa Maria Paya, daughter of the Cuban opposition leader Osvaldo Paya, asked Almagro if he supports the rights of the people of Cuba to decide their own fate, Almagro responded that “political exclusion is unacceptable”, then he added that “democracy means that everybody should participate”. “The government belongs to the people” and “there is no worse corruption than to obliterate elections because such step strips the people from their right to decide.”

Almagro did not mention Cuba by name but stated his principles. The question is how does he stand today specifically towards Cuba and Venezuela? (The issue of Venezuela and Cuba was not on the OAS agenda).

If Cuba was unfairly excluded in the past for its type of regime but today Cuba itself is unfair to its citizens by being oppressive, something Almagro finds unacceptable, would Almagro use his position to press Cuba to decompress the regime? Or this will be another piece of paper without consequence?

Let us be realistic Almagro cannot be as passionate to press Cuba to change as the millions of Cubans who suffer under the regime. But it certainly can thrive to achieve this goal in a way that he feels comfortable. Would he do it? Would he do it also with Venezuela where citizens are suffering greatly from lack of liberties and now lack of basic products?

In light of what is happening in the OAS, with more countries supporting the Inter-American agenda of the most authoritarian leaders in the region, this seems unlikely.

Most probably neither Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Bolivia, nor Nicaragua will find any incentives to improve their human rights record. Let us not fool ourselves, Almagro also served a Uruguayan president who was openly sympathetic to Chavez’ socialist agenda and he himself was sympathetic to Iran, a terrorist and totalitarian state with strong connections to Venezuela and the ALBA alliance. Almagro is unlikely to have any input let alone leadership that could counteract the anti-democracy tendencies in the region.

And what about the United States? Well, the United States funds more than half of the OAS $83 million budget contributing $49 million. Brazil gives $10 million, Canada $8 million and Mexico, $5.6 million dollars. The contribution of the rest of the countries is minimal. Meanwhile, we are witnessing the collapse of the Inter-American Democratic Charter, one of the pillars of stability and American foreign policy in the region, and, most importantly a guarantor of freedom in the region.

Don’t we have anything to say about these developments?

Qatar extends travel ban for ‘Taliban 5’

The United States Department of State has reached an agreement with the Qatari government regarding extending the travel ban on the ‘Taliban 5’ for “another few days” giving time for the United States, Qatar and Afghanistan to discuss a possible “6-month extension on the ban.”

In May of 2014, the US government conducted a swap involving Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl and the ‘Taliban 5’; Fazil Mazlooom, Khairullak Khairkhwa, Norullah Noori, Mohammed Nabi Omari and Abdul Haq Wasiq. Bergdahl, who was held captive by the Taliban for five years after leaving his post in Afghanistan, was able to come home in exchange for the discharge of the ‘Taliban 5’ from Guantanamo Bay to Qatar, where they are expected to undergo a year of supervision as a term of release. While Bergdahl was charged with desertion in March and could be faced with life in prison, the Taliban 5 remain in Qatar, awaiting their official release, which was set for May 25, 2015. The date set was exactly a year after the swap was conducted and deal was made between Qatari officials and the US government.

This swap came after multiple assurances from President Obama that he would close Guantanamo Bay before the end of his term, even attempting an executive order (Executive Order 13492) in 2009 for legal alternate routes regarding the “detention of captives” in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba.

President Obama was heavily criticized once he revealed this exchange to the public. However, President Obama attempted to assure citizens, saying in a press conference soon after the swap, “I wouldn’t be doing it if I thought that it was contrary to American national security.” Qatari government officials assured Obama repeatedly that they would be able to moderate the ‘Taliban 5’ and the threat they pose.

After this one-year deal expired, concerns were raised about the ex- Guantanamo bay ‘Taliban 5’ returning to terrorist activity. Representative Mike Pompeo (R-KS), a member of the House Intelligence Committee explained to Fox News, “I’ve seen nothing that causes me to believe these folks are reformed or [have] changed their ways or intend to re-integrate to society in ways to give me any confidence that they will not return in trying to do harm to America.” Furthermore, in January, CNN was the first to report that at least one of the Taliban 5 was reportedly attempting to make contact to militants in Afghanistan. In March, Fox News confirmed with government officials that at least three of the five Taliban leaders in captivity had attempted to make contact with militants and terror networks. The Taliban Political Office, which opened on June 18, 2013, is located in Qatar providing the ‘Taliban 5’ with easy contact to their militant group.

CNN reports that every six months Congress is given a report concerning “the status of detainees transferred out of Gitmo.” The September 2014 report shows that “17% of detainees … are confirmed to have returned to militant activity. About 12% are in the suspected category.” John McCain stated, “30% of past Guantanamo detainees re-enter the fight” during his push for a bill he and three other Senators produced in January 2015 to keep Guantanamo open and prohibit transfers for two years. And in an article written by Fox News, “intelligence and Defense officials” suspect as many as “20 to 30 former Guantanamo Bay detainees … of having joined the Islamic State and other militant groups.”

On May 31, a State Department official said Qatar “has agreed to maintain the current conditions on these individuals as we continue these discussions.” While a member of the Afghanistan High Peace Council, Ismail Qasimyar, has reportedly said, “the five Taliban either should remain in Qatar indefinitely or be handed over to the Afghan government.”

This proposed 6-month extension on the travel ban for the ‘Taliban 5’ from the State Department is an important but temporary solution to the problem at hand. The prevention of recidivism for these five Taliban leaders is highly unlikely, putting the threat of meeting past detainees on the battlefield higher than ever before.

An Evaluation of the Summit of the Americas

The summit of the Americas that concluded early in April had a number of components, some of them more visible than others.

Of course, the media’s main focus was on the meeting between President Barack Obama and the Cuban dictator, Raul Castro.

The spirit of the meeting generated optimism. Raul Castro exempted Obama from all the “sins” committed by the United States against Cuba and for the first time praised an American president and his humble origins.

This historic meeting was also the centerpiece of the speeches delivered by many of the 35 Latin American presidents present at the conference. Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff called both presidents courageous and defined the embargo against Cuba as harmful to the Cuban people and to inter-American relations. Rousseff disregarded the fact that the miserable situation Cuba now finds itself in, is the result of its’ communist system and that Cuba’s subversive activities since the 1960’s has been a source of inter American division rather than unity.

Obama confirmed Rousseff’s (and Castro’s) view when in a speech delivered before the social forum, he pointed out “”The days when the U.S. agenda in this hemisphere often assumed that the U.S. could interfere with impunity, are over….If the United States starts a new chapter in its relations with Cuba, we expect that such a move would lead to an environment where the lives of Cubans could be improved”.

Of course, the U.S. embargo did not prevent Cuba from establishing commercial relations with Europeans and other countries. Yet, apparently conciliation seems to require that the U.S. declare “mea culpa”. The Castro regime needs to be vindicated and not made responsible for Cuba’s disastrous situation. The slogan that “Imperial policies” determine the fate of peripheral countries in a zero sum game is always a convenient explanation. Raul Castro, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, Rafael Correa of Ecuador and Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua presented this view in their speeches and more subtly the Argentinean president Cristina Kirchner, as well. The idea is that there is no future without linking it to the past, as a couple of pro-ALBA intellectuals, Hector Diaz Polanco and Esteban Morales defined it. U.S.-Latin American relations cannot get out of this historical cage. So, according to this conception, the United States should stay passive and accept the regional verdict rather than try to influence it because the U.S. has a very bad history in this region, which is very difficult to amend.

Along these lines, most Latin American presidents urged president Obama to lift the sanctions against the seven thugs that violated human rights in Venezuela, including our traditional ally, Colombia. This shows the kind of pressure the ALBA countries as well as the left-wing regimes of the Southern Cone can exercise. Thankfully, the U.S. did not surrender to this demand, at least for now, although President Obama distanced himself from the language of his executive order that claimed that Venezuela is a security threat.

Yet, interestingly enough, the Summit, itself, did not adopt a final declaration. Part of the lack of consensus was related to the sanctions against Venezuela.

The points of agreement included issues related to prosperity, inequities, education, energy and health. However, there was no agreement on issues related to democratic governance.

However, it was in the forum of civil society where the Summit was more successful and it was precisely on democratic governance that most groups representing civil society across national boundaries, reached consensus. A final declaration was adopted that calls the Organization of American States (OAS) to implement its mandate to safeguard democracy and respect for human rights. It also calls to create effective mechanisms to implement such a mandate. Likewise, the resolution calls Latin American countries to guarantee and respect those NGO’s and individuals that advocate for human rights. No less important, the resolution calls to guarantee the independence of the judiciary in all the countries of the region and the elimination of corruption and impunity. By the same token, the resolution urges a stop to criminalizing social protest, police abuse, racial profiling and political imprisonment.

Interestingly enough, this kind of resolution was not adopted by the presidents mainly because of the pressure from Cuba, Venezuela, and their allies.

In the civil society forum pro-Castro elements, many of them without proper credentials to participate tried to sabotage the meeting along with their allies from Ecuador, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela. This included physical violence, threats and insults, including racial remarks specifically directed to Dr. Celia Moreno, an Afro-Panamanian woman who served as co-chair of the civil society forum.

The leaders of Latin America were focused on celebrating the inclusion of Cuba and chose to downplay the elements of violation of democracy and human rights and protect Cuba and Venezuela. By contrast, civil society groups from different countries in the region reaffirmed that principle and the importance of strengthening and implementing the OAS democratic charter.

Likewise, 33 ex-presidents from Latin America issued a declaration denouncing the political and social crisis in Venezuela and demanded the release of political prisoners and respect for human rights and the rule of law.

The Summit was a clash of two polarized views; the view of the governments and the view of civil society. The presidents of the Latin American countries are seeking Latin American unity and integration based on a general view of socialism regardless of democratic governance. Although not every country goes along with this position, the left governments are leading the choir and the other countries are following suit fearful of being isolated. The leaders of the civil society groups are stressing rights and democracy above everything else. This raises the question whether the OAS that has turned away from enforcing the Democratic Charter in recent years in such countries as Venezuela, will now take its mandate to do so seriously.

Latin American leaders must be constantly reminded of their responsibilities to ensure the freedoms their citizens deserve. Therefore, the role of civil society groups in keeping the pressure is crucial to maintain the integrity of the OAS and its democratic charter.

President Obama was focused on his relation with Cuba and the beginning of a process of normalization.

If U.S. policy focuses only on relations with governments, it may pay a price in the long run. The U.S. government needs to strengthen relations with civil society groups. The openness to Cuba has raised the concern of those civil society groups that are afraid that their human rights plea will be abandoned. Normalizing relations with Cuba or even Venezuela should not be the ultimate end. It must be accompanied with a strategy.

The final goal should be securing democratic governance and securing stability in a region now filled with tyrants, drug traffickers, anarchy, and terrorism.

Cuba’s Role in Supporting Terrorism (ENG & ESP)

The Obama administration has decided to remove Cuba’s designation as a State sponsor of terrorism. The State Department determined that Cuba had not engaged in terrorist activities over the in past six months and therefore should be removed from the list. While debate regarding this diplomatic maneuver rages, the American people should focus on more than the fact that Cuba harbors fugitives.

The real danger of this diplomatic action does not come from individuals who murdered police officers over the years. Rather, the real security threat comes from Cuba’s continuous support of repressive regimes and various violent non-state actors, as well as the Castros’ treatment of the Cuban citizens.

Cuban Material Support for Terrorists and other Violent Non-State Actors:

The most dangerous action Cuba takes on a regular basis is the unwavering support of violent non-state actors, primarily Hezbollah and Hamas, the FARC guerrillas of Colombia, and the colectivos of Venezuela.

It has been reported that Cuban intelligence has directly provided support to Hezbollah and Hamas, or has done so indirectly through their puppet regime in Venezuela. The relationship between Cuba and Hezbollah became so well established at one point, that it was reported that Hezbollah wanted to open a base of operations in Havana.

Cuba has notoriously been involved in supporting the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, better known as the FARC. On the surface Cuba has recently been playing peacemaker between the Colombian government and the FARC guerrillas by acting as the middleman in the peace negotiations. This in reality has been a façade to get the western world to open up to Cuba. Historically, the Cuban military has support the FARC guerrillas with weapons, logistics, and training. One day after President Obama declared he would remove Cuba from the state sponsor of terrorism, the FARC ambushed and killed 10 Colombian soldiers.

In regards to the case of Venezuela, the Chavez regime used a Castro tacit to establish what are known as colectivos. A former Cuban intelligence official named Uberto Mario, described how these paramilitary groups were trained by the Cuban regime. Following indoctrination in the Marxist ideology, they were flown to Cuba, where they learned to “repress and kill” anyone who opposed the Chavista ideology. They were later returned home to Venezuela to act as Chavez’ and Maduro’s secret police.

In addition to the aforementioned cases, Jaime Suchlicki, professor and director for the Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies at the University of Miami, stated:

  • Cubans also control [Venezuela’s] Servicio de Identificacion, Migracion y Extranjeria, Caracas, which facilitates the travel of drug organizations, Colombian guerrillas, and Islamist terrorists.
  • In 2014 the Castro government decreed that it would now begin to freeze bank assets affiliated to Al-Qaeda in Cuba. The Castro regime thus tacitly admitted that they had been facilitating financing of terrorism.
  • “Hezbollah in Cuba” the Hamas-funded Turkish charity known as IHH, continues to operate in Havana. IHH is a member of the “Union of Good”, an umbrella organization that financially supports Hamas.

Cuba’s Support of Repressive Regimes:

The Cuban regime under Fidel and Raul Castro has been known to support “anti-imperial” regimes around the world. From sending Che Guevara and a group of militants to Angola, to supporting Hugo Chavez in Venezuela, the Castros have yearned to spread their revolutionary ideology throughout the world.

In recent years, the Cuban regime has dealt with rogue nations such as the Democratic People Republic of Korea, Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and the Chavista regime in Venezuela.

The Kim family in North Korea has used Cuba as a way of circumventing UN sanctions over the years. In 2013, the North Korean merchant vessel the Chong Chon Gang was flagged down and intercepted in Panama carrying Soviet-era weapons and fighter jets. These illegal weapons were not declared and hidden under shipments of sugar coming from Cuba. While this is just one instance of conventional arms proliferation, for years North Korean vessels have been disappearing from commercial shipping lanes while near Cuban waters.

The Cuba that Fidel and Raul Castro have created has had a long history of espionage and covert actions targeted towards the United States. Due to the island’s close proximity, they are able to easily eavesdrop on signals intelligence and conduct human intelligence operations. This was useful to Iraq’s ex-dictator, Saddam Hussein. It has been reported that prior to Saddam Hussein’s execution, the Castros and Saddam were close. Additionally, it has been reported that Cuban intelligence shared critical information with the Iraqis prior to the United States’ invasion in 2003.

The Chavista regime in Venezuela stands alone as the Castros’ crown jewel achievement. It has been their only successful long-term investment in spreading their revolutionary ideology. While the United States attempts to restore diplomatic relations with Cuba, the Castros’ have publically criticized the Obama administration for their sanctions on Venezuelan officials.

Cuba is so extensively invested in Venezuela, that when Hugo Chavez took power in 1999, the Cuban intelligence secretariat single-handily configured the Venezuelan intelligence community. This has led to the same oppressive tactics that are used in Cuba to be prevalent in Venezuelan politics. The Chavista regime uses private militias to quell civil unrest and peaceful protests, in addition to the mass imprisonment of political dissidents.

The Castros are Harming Cubans, Not the Embargo

The Castro brothers, as well as many American politicians, have stated that the United States’ actions against Cuba are the root causes of the island’s problems. They believe that the embargo enacted by John F. Kennedy nearly fifty year ago has caused suffering to the Cuban people. This can be no further from the truth.

While economic sanctions without a doubt are meant to harm a country’s economy, the Castros have been the main reason behind the Cuban people’s misery. The regime in Cuba is rife with corruption, from low-level officials to the highest ranked generals. In comparison to what the Cuban state media portrays, the Castro brothers are known to live extravagantly compared to the Cuban populaces.

In addition to the corrupt nature of the regime, the Castros are experts in oppressing their people. As the Human Rights Watch describes,

The Cuban government continues to repress individuals and groups who criticize the government or call for basic human rights. Officials employ a range of tactics to punish dissent and instill fear in the public, including beatings, public acts of shaming, termination of employment, and threats of long-term imprisonment.

While the national media in the United States hailed Cuba for releasing 53 political prisoners in January, no American news outlet has highlighted the continuous culture of political imprisonment in Cuba. In March alone, 610 individuals were arrested in Cuba for crimes ranging from “demanding freedom for political prisoners, reading a foreign newspaper, sharing anti-communist jokes, attending mass, and providing Internet access to young people”.

This kind of behavior cannot be overlooked when determining whether or not to remove Cuba from the State sponsor of terrorism. The United States is dangerously establishing a new international diplomatic trend. By acknowledging Cuba as a member of the international community, the United States risks the further legitimization of repressive regimes around world.

 

 

 

 

El rol de Cuba en el apoyo del terrorismo

El gobierno de Obama ha decidido sacar Cuba de la lista de Estado patrocinador del terrorismo. El Departamento de Estado Americano determinó que Cuba no había participado en actividades terroristas en los últimos seis meses, por lo que debe ser eliminado de la lista. Mientras que el debate con respecto a este último postura diplomática, el pueblo estadounidense debería centrarse en más que el hecho de que Cuba protege a los fugitivos internacionales.

El verdadero peligro de esta acción diplomática no proviene de individuos que asesinaron a policías en los últimos años. Más bien, la amenaza de seguridad real viene del apoyo de Cuba a los regímenes represivos y varios actores no estatales violentos, ademas del tratamiento de Castro a los ciudadanos cubanos.

Apoyo cubano a los terroristas y otros agentes no estatales violentos:

La acción más peligrosa Cuba toma de forma regular es el apoyo incondicional de los actores no estatales violentos, principalmente Hezbollah y Hamas, los guerrilleros de las FARC de Colombia, y los colectivos de Venezuela.

Se ha reportado que la inteligencia cubana proporciona directamente o indirectamente a través de su régimen títere en Venezuela, la inteligencia a Hezbollah y Hamas. La relación entre Cuba y Hezbollah llegó a ser tan bien establecido en un punto, que se reportó que Hezbollah quería abrir una base de operaciones en La Habana.

Cuba notoriamente ha estado involucrado en el apoyo a las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia, más conocido como las FARC. En la superficie Cuba recientemente ha estado jugando pacificador entre el gobierno colombiano y la guerrilla de las FARC, actuando como intermediario en las negociaciones de paz. Esto en realidad ha sido una fachada para conseguir que el mundo occidental se abra a Cuba. Históricamente, los militares cubanos apoyaron a los guerrilleros de las FARC con armas, logística y capacitación. Un día después que el presidente Obama declaró que eliminaría Cuba de la lista de los estados patrocinador del terrorismo, las FARC emboscaron y mataron a 10 soldados colombianos.

En respecto al caso de Venezuela, el régimen de Chávez utilizó un tácito de los Castro para establecer lo que se conoce como los colectivos. Un ex oficial de inteligencia cubano, Uberto Mario, describió cómo estos grupos paramilitares fueron entrenados por el régimen cubano. Después de adoctrinamiento en la ideología marxista, ellos fueron trasladados a Cuba, donde aprendieron a “reprimir y matar” cualquier persona que se oponía a la ideología chavista, y enviado de regreso para Venezuela.

Además de los casos mencionados, Jaime Suchlicki, profesor y director del Instituto de Estudios Cubanos y Cubano-Americanos de la Universidad de Miami, declaró:

  • Los cubanos también controlan el Servicio de Identificación, Migración y Extranjería, Caracas, lo que facilita los viajes de organizaciones de la droga, la guerrilla colombiana, y los terroristas islamistas.
  • En 2014 el gobierno de Castro decretó que ahora empezaría a congelar los activos de los bancos afiliados a Al-Qaeda en Cuba. El régimen de Castro así tácitamente admitió que habían estado facilitando la financiación del terrorismo.
  • “Hezbolá en Cuba” la la caridad turca financiado por Hamas conocido como IHH, sigue operando en La Habana. IHH es miembro de la “Unión del Bien”, una organización que apoya económicamente a Hamas.

Apoyo Cubano a los regímenes represivos:

El régimen cubano bajo Fidel y Raúl Castro han sido conocidos por apoyar a regímenes “anti-imperialistas” por todo el mundo. Desde el envío de Che Guevara y un grupo de militantes a Angola, al apoyar a Hugo Chávez en Venezuela, los Castro han querido extender su ideología revolucionaria a todo el mundo.

En los últimos años, el régimen cubano ha trabajado con naciones rebeldes, como la República Democrática Popular de Corea, el Irak de Saddam Hussein, y el régimen chavista en Venezuela.

La familia Kim en Corea del Norte ha utilizado a Cuba como una manera de evitar sanciones de la ONU en los últimos años. En 2013, el buque mercante norcoreano Chong Chon Gang, fue marcado e interceptó en Panamá portando armas de la era soviética y aviones de combate. Estas armas ilegales no fueron declarados y escondidos bajo cajas de azúcar de Cuba. Aunque esto es sólo un ejemplo de la proliferación de las armas convencionales, por años buques norcoreanos han ido desapareciendo de los carriles comerciales cerca de las aguas cubanas.

Cuba de Castro ha tenido una larga historia de espionaje y acciones clandestinas dirigidas hacia los Estados Unidos. Debido a la proximidad de la isla, son capaces de interceptar fácilmente en las señales de inteligencia y realizar operaciones de inteligencia humana. Esto fue útil para ex dictador de Irak, Saddam Hussein. Se ha reportado que antes de la muerte de Saddam Hussein, los Castro y Saddam estaban cerca. Además, se ha reportado que la inteligencia cubana compartió información crítica con los iraquíes antes de la invasión de Estados Unidos en 2003.

El régimen chavista en Venezuela queda solo como el mayor logro de los Castro. Ha sido la única inversión exitosa a largo plazo en la difusión de su ideología revolucionaria. Mientras que los Estados Unidos tratan de restablecer las relaciones diplomáticas con Cuba, los Castro han criticado públicamente al gobierno de Obama por sus sanciones a funcionarios venezolanos.

Cuba está invertido tan extensamente en Venezuela, que cuando Hugo Chávez llegó al poder en 1999, la secretaría de la inteligencia cubana configurado sin ayuda de nadie la comunidad de inteligencia de Venezuela. Las mismas tácticas represivas impuestas por los funcionarios cubanos están siendo utilizados por el gobierno venezolano. El régimen chavista utiliza las milicias privadas para sofocar los disturbios civiles y las protestas pacíficas, además del encarcelamiento masivo de disidentes políticos.

Los Castro están destruyendo Cuba, no el Embargo

Los hermanos Castro, así como muchos políticos estadounidenses, han declarado que los Estados Unidos es la causa fundamental de los problemas de Cuba. Ellos creen que el embargo decretado por John F. Kennedy hace casi cincuenta año ha causado sufrimiento al pueblo cubano. Esto no es verdad.

Mientras que las sanciones económicas sin duda tienen el propósito de dañar la economía de un país, los Castro han sido la razón principal detrás del sufrimiento del pueblo cubano. El régimen en Cuba está plagada de corrupción, desde los bajos funcionarios a los generales de más alto rango. En comparación con lo que retratan los medios estatales cubanos, los hermanos Castro son conocidos por vivir extravagante en comparación con la población cubana.

Además de la naturaleza corrupta del régimen, los Castro son expertos en la opresión de su pueblo. A medida que la Human Rights Watch describe,

El gobierno cubano continúa reprimiendo a los individuos y grupos que critican al Gobierno o pregunten por los derechos humanos básicos. Los funcionarios emplean una variedad de tácticas para castigar la disidencia e infundir temor en la población, como palizas, actos públicos de la vergüenza, la terminación del empleo, y las amenazas de encarcelamiento a largo plazo.

Mientras que los medios de comunicación nacional en los Estados Unidos felicitó a Cuba por la liberación de 53 presos políticos en enero, ningún cadena estadounidense ha destacado la cultura continua de la prisión política en Cuba. Sólo en marzo, 610 personas fueron detenidas en Cuba por delitos que van desde “exigiendo la libertad de los presos políticos, leyendo un periódico extranjero, diciendo chistes anticomunistas, ir a misa, y ofrecer acceso a Internet a los jóvenes”.

Este tipo de comportamiento no puede ser pasado por alto cuando se determina si se quitan o no a Cuba de la lista de estados patrocinador del terrorismo. Los Estados Unidos está estableciendo peligrosamente una nueva tendencia diplomática internacional. Al reconocer a Cuba como miembro de la comunidad internacional, los Estados Unidos corre el riesgo de una mayor legitimación de los regímenes represivos alrededor del mundo.

Corruption Allegations Plaguing Brazil’s Leftist Administration

For the second time in nearly a month, the Brazilian people have taken to the street to protest President Dilma Rousseff’s administration. The latest protests revolve around corruption charges being levied against her and members of her politically leftist Workers Party.

While some protesters are calling specifically for the impeachment of President Rousseff, others have demanded for constitutional military intervention.

The corruption charges arise from alleged price-fixing brackets that cost the state-owned oil company Petrobras billions of dollars during her tenure as Chairwoman between 2003 and 2010.

As much as leftist governments tout that they represent the people and capitalism is corrupt, this recent example only helps strengthen the argument that the most corrupt sector in Latin American is not the capitalist, but the socialist regimes.

While no evidence has surfaced yet directly tying President Rousseff’s to these charges, it is strongly believed that she was at least complicit, if not directly involved, in the crime.

It is important that the western world not fail to recognize the fact that while Brazil stands as one of our strongest trading partners, under President Rousseff, the country has strengthened ties to hostile nations around the world.

In the past, Dilma publically condemned the United States regarding the NSA spying scandal at the UN. Coincidentally, in the same speech she failed to mention the Venezuelan and Cuban intelligence apparatus that aggressively prosecutes political dissidents within their own countries.

Brazil under Dilma Rousseff has strongly supported Venezuela and other ALBA nations. As recently as last month, Brazil released a joint statement with various left leaning Latin American governments criticizing President Barack Obama’s sanctions against seven Venezuelan officials accused of violating protestor’s right to free speech.

In the recent establishment of diplomatic talks between the US and Cuba, the Brazilian president took the side of the totalitarian regime. Dilma, as the Brazilians call her, only sees this through the eyes of the socialist guerrilla that she is. She believes that this is a victory for social fighters around the world against the so-called “imperialists”.

Not only is Brazil slowly treading into hazardous waters through their rhetoric, their recent arms agreements with Russia is setting up a precedent that should be avoided at all costs. Brazil is currently behind the United States, Venezuela, and Mexico in arms imports for the hemisphere. Through Russian assistance, they could easily become a greater threat to regional stability.

Luckily, the Brazilian populace is noticing the dangerous direction Dilma Rousseff is taking the country. They want economic stability and personal safety, not another corrupt leftist President.