US Democratic Party Pays Homage to Cuban Dissident

HAVANA TIMES — The Democratic Party of US on Wednesday made public its official statement in support of an international homage for the deceased Cuban political opponent Oswaldo Paya, reported Europa Press

Following a meeting with European deputy Salvador Sedo, former US secretary of State Madeleine Albright commented that the National Democratic Institute and its party would support the homage planned to be held in Barcelona at the end of the year.

The possibilities were also analyzed for opening an international investigation to clarify the causes of the traffic accident in which the dissidents Paya and Harold Cepero died this past July.

6 thoughts on “US Democratic Party Pays Homage to Cuban Dissident

  • Moses, you do talk the most awful rubbish. Are you by chance a US journalist?

    The late Mr Payá was seen as a “servant” by the US (anti-)Democratic Party because they secretly and illegally bankrolled him. It’s that simple.

    He was paid from the budget of the US empire’s political interference operation aimed at regime change in Cuba, as you acknowledge.

    That makes him a covert agent of a hostile power working against his own country’s sovereignty, something that’s illegal in most countries, not just in Cuba. In particular, it is illegal in the United States.

    You find that acceptable because you are a shameless US imperialist., but your bourgeois and chauvinist loyalties to the US ruling class are not binding on others, who are free to see as reprehensible Mr Payá’s actions in selling out his country to the former colonial power seeking to overturn its independence and reimpose a client regime.

    You point out that Mr Payá had his own agenda, beyond doing the will of his US employers. So what? Servants always have interests and goals separate from those of their masters. Mr Payá, in particular, was more loyal to the Vatican despite “his cash” coming from the empire. That partly explains the difficulties (highlighted in other Wikileaked cables) experienced by Mr Payá’s US handlers in managing him and getting him to play nicely with the rest of their dissident (and mutually dissident) Cuban employees..

    All that makes Mr Payá a relatively unruly servant, but a servant none the less. He who pays the piper calls the tune.

  • ‘Moses’ does rant on. His style certainly changes from comment to comment, much like Hollywood movie ‘franchises’ directed by different people. After all, how could one person find the time to comment so relentlessly? Sorry ‘Moses’, only commenting on the obvious. I think it’s time to start acknowledging the obvious.

    The “Moses Franchise” writes, “There is nothing in the Wikileaks cable nor in from any other source to justify defaming the memory of the late Sr. Paya.

    “Correct, who wrote anything about defaming? Questioning the justification for a ‘homage’ for Sr Paya, seemingly driven more by an attempt to highlight dissent in Cuba and imply his death was due to foul play, than to honour him, however, is hardly defaming.

    The Moses Franchise asks, “What evidence is there that he was a “servant of anyone other than of his widely-known Christian faith”?

    Wikileaks: “Paya, who gets his cash quietly from NDI” [National Democratic Institute, a funnel for US money to foment regime change, to dissident groups in Cuba and other countries]. Capitalists, like the Moses Franchise, certainly should be aware of class dynamics – servants are the one’s you pay, at least in the temporal world.

    The Moses Franchise writes, “the US has made no secret of its policy to foment regime change in Cuba.” That is certainly true, although it is also certainly true it tries to keep secret what it has done in service of this policy. A LOT MORE than verbiage I’m afraid.

    I’ll cite only one example, a Channel 4 documentary film, “638 Ways to Kill Castro”, that was broadcast in the UK in 2006, “tells the story of some of the numerous attempts of the Central Intelligence Agency to kill Cuba’s leader Fidel Castro.” – Wikipedia.

    The Moses Franchise writes that “Paya was simply exercising his GOD-given right to disagree with the ruling government in Cuba” and goes on about how his courage “warrants the homage”.

    So one can assume the Moses Franchise agrees the courage of Julian Assange and Bradley Manning, taking on the US Empire, something Paya not only didn’t do but was in the pay of, also deserves a homage for disagreeing with ruling governments? Why do I doubt this?

    Time to hear from the peanut gallery on this one, I think, aka, the Franchise.

  • There is nothing in the Wikileaks cable nor in from any other source to justify defaming the memory of the late Sr. Paya. What evidence is there that he was a “servant” of anyone other thanof his widely-known Christian faith. Likewise, the US has made no secret of its policy to foment regime change in Cuba. Read the Cuban Democracy Act of 1992, as amended. Where is your news here? While there is valid disagreement as to the legitimacy of the Castro dictatorship, none should disagree that Paya was simply exercising his GOD-given right to disagree with the ruling government in Cuba. The courage alone required to press such an undertaking against the Castro regime, let alone his successes with the Varela Project and his non-violent resistance to Cuban totalitarianism warrants the homage to his life’s work as scheduled to take place this year. Cuban syncophants such as the previous comments imply, continue to fail to appreciate that Cuban dissidents simply want the same rights to express themselves and their differences in Cuban civil society as these gentlemen enjoy in their respective countries.

  • 2 paths to regime change????????? how about a cuban path or any old path that comes along and looks good at the time? that is the usual process. this osvaldo what’s his name. was he famous for being famous? was he a professional dissident like professional students who never leave university until the young and attractive students reject their advances? what did he achieve? they, the government is still in the chair as obama put it in a tweet. did he have a lifestyle of the rich and shameless, i mean famous? as far as i know, the cuban leaders have never been into assassinations but rather the reverse. there have been many attempts on their lives. some people believe that coincidence is god showing himself. the most likely explanation is a couple of poor drivers who made their mistake about the same time. if they died the same day the idea might be worth considering. of course, prince philip had princess diana assassinated by automobile. why didn’t she just fall down the stairs like at british police stations. she fell over a balcony after drinking too much at the palace. it’s all absurdity. i remember the anti-war demonstrators at the beginning of the second gulf war with placards. WE WANT REGIME CHANGE TOO.

  • Thanks Richard, the Wikileaks cable is certainly revealing. The whole “homage’ thing is stomach-turning, venally using his death to highlight criticism of Cuba. The calls for investigation are designed to imply foul play was possible.

    In addition to ‘following the money’, the cable leaves no question as to what the US is trying to do. The subject line is:


    The two paths are “Cuba’s two most prominent dissident leaders, Martha Beatriz Roque and Oswaldo Paya”. Paya sounds like the more reasonable of the two but the cable notes, “they have grown to respect one another more and more over time” and “both see a U.S. role in regime change.”

    Stating that neither “proposes joining operational forces”, we have solid evidence the US has “operational forces’ within Cuba working for regime change. The process is called subversion of a legitimate foreign government.

    The US government is using legitimate Cuban critics of their government for purposes of subverting their government for US ends, having nothing to do with the interests and well-being of Cubans.

    Making pacts with the Devil, especially a powerful one, rarely, if ever, come to good ends

  • It’s not correct for this article to call the praise by the perversely named “Democratic” Party of the US for the late Mr Payá “homage.”

    “Homage” is the respect which a followers pay to a leader; this, however, is “patronage,” i.e. the respect of a master for a valued servant.

    That’s because the perversely named “National Democratic Institute,” the “Democratic” Party’s very own corrupt slush fund for laundering illegal foreign subversion money from the US imperial regime’s budget, was the paymaster for Mr Payá, as the Wikileaked cable 07HAVANA668 makes clear.

    “¶10. (C) Paya, who gets his cash quietly from NDI, thank you, …”

Comments are closed.