Vicente Morin Aguado

John Kerry y Bruno Rodríguez en La Habana, 14-08-2015.  Foto:
John Kerry y Bruno Rodríguez en La Habana, 14-08-2015. Foto:

HAVANA TIMES — “(…) we will continue to urge the Cuban Government to fulfill its obligations under the UN and inter-American human rights covenants.” – John Kerry

Asking Raul Castro’s government to fully guarantee freedom of expression, information and association is not interfering in the internal affairs of Cuba, nor does it encroach upon the nation’s sovereignty in and of itself. It is equally just to demand that the United States put an end to the blockade, return the territory occupied by the Guantanamo naval base and negotiate financial compensation for the more than fifty years of conflict, characterized by blood, sweat and tears.

Speaking at the Hotel Nacional, a smiling Cuban foreign minister made this statement:

“Cuba feels proud of its record in terms of guaranteeing full, indivisible, interdependent and universal human rights, as well as civil liberties, political, economic, social and cultural rights for all Cuban men and women, and, we hope, for every citizen on the planet as well.”

Proclaiming collective human rights – the paradigm of a decadent authoritarian socialism – is a joke when the average salary, according to official figures, is barely 25 dollars a month, infectious and contagious diseases propagate across the country unchecked, high-performance athletes are leaving the country en masse, State-owned cattle are dying by the thousands and, to cut a long list short, hundreds of thousands of Cubans in several provinces cannot even be supplied with drinking water on a daily basis.

With characteristic Anglo-Saxon straightforwardness, Kerry summarized the paranoia of communist propaganda regarding the United States:

“I hear it from a number of other countries in the world when we talk to them about human rights (…): ‘Well, you guys have Ferguson, you guys have Brown who was killed.’  (…) It’s not on a par, it’s not the government … not an administration, not a pervasive government policy that we effect. It’s just not.  (…) That’s a huge distinction.”

Trapped in its existential predicament, forced to eke out a living every day (one is tempted to coin the expression “the Cuban way of life” to describe this state of affairs), the majority of the population is distanced from the kind of civic awareness that was taught at schools in the first fifty years of the Cuban republic, that longing for freedom that helped Fidel Castro’s cause against Fulgencio Batista so much. Such values were subsequently curtailed by more than fifty years of a command system, under a single Party and a democracy that boiled down to raising one’s hand on request.

On the one hand, the socialist abomination has failed and salvation comes from abroad. On the other, public awareness is dormant and only gradually being awakened.

The country’s dependence on what lies beyond its borders amplifies its internal contradictions. Thanks to inevitable exchange, the number of Cubans who are exposed to the democratic values they are denied at home grows every day. US demands would be satisfied with the adoption of the rights that have been accepted by the new left-wing constitutions of Latin America, characteristic of the Cuban government’s best allies today.

“There’s no way Congress is going to lift the embargo if you (Cubans) do not move in terms of matters of conscience,” Kerry said in Havana.

Forgetting about recalcitrant spirits like Rubio, Bush and others in Miami, the United States’ gesture is serious and well-founded. It stems from the curtailment of an aggressive policy and the ditching of numerous political banners that had justified repression in Cuba till now, practices inherited by the current pragmatic and reformist administration, whether Raul Castro likes it or not.

A few votes in Congress would suffice to dismantle all claims surrounding the blockade and territorial aggression. Compensation for damages would involve a long, nearly endless discussion, but the lifting of restrictions on tourism would mean an unprecedented boost for the Cuban economy.

Will Raul Castro and his supposed successors be willing to negotiate what the United States had refused to till now, in exchange for a fully democratic country? What sort of socialism lies ahead of us? Will the experiences of Latin American governments who have become Fidel Castro’s step-sons be of any use?

An end to the blockade. The return of the Guantanamo naval base. Just compensation for economic damages caused by fifty years of aggressions against the Cuban people.

Full and inalienable rights (of expression, information and association).

The United States has the real capability, economic prowess and political will to address the demands of the Cuban government.

The other answer is in the hands of the autocracy that governs my country today.

To put it using a Cuban idiom: “the table has been served.”

Vicente Morín Aguado: [email protected]

54 thoughts on “Kerry vs. Cuba: The Table is Served

  • Just stating facts that you can’t refute, as always.
    I see you don’t even try to deny that before Castro Cuba was the third developed country in the Americas.

    “Armando Hart, a member of Castro’s innermost ruling group, made the extremely significant observation that:
    . . . it is certain that capitalism had attained high levels of organization, efficiency and production that declined after the Revolution. . . (Juventud Rebelde, November 2, 1969; quoted by Rene Dumont, Is Cuba Socialist?)

    Castro himself admitted that there was no hunger in Cuba:
    Cuba, the “Pearl of the Antilles,” though by no means a paradise, was not, as many believe, an economically backward country. Castro himself admitted that while there was poverty, there was no economic crisisand no hunger in Cuba before the Revolution. (See Maurice Halperin: The Rise and Fall of Fidel Castro, University of California, 1972, pgs. 24, 25, 37)

    From this other Socialist website the developed status of Cuba before Castro (and the immediate effects of his take-over) are clear:

    “Firstly Cuba was already relatively developed before 1959, probably third in Latin America. Secondly, Cuba compares well but not is not markedly better than examples of capitalist countries on a similar level, like Taiwan and Costa Rica. Thirdly, since the withdrawal of the Russian subsidy there has been a terrible decline in living standards.

    Cuba’s annual growth figure of 4% over the first thirty years, even if it is credible, which I doubt, does not reveal the whole picture. Cuba fell from third place in Latin America to fifteenth for GDP per capita between 1952 and 1981, and the growth figures that were achieved did not arise from increases in productivity. The economy shrank from the mid-1980’s and plummeted 35% between 1989-93, back to 1970’s levels. GDP per head is now lower than Jamaica. From 1963 Cuba became a sugar monoculture within the Soviet empire. But the real crisis in Cuban agriculture is shown by the fact that half the food for Havana (three million people) is currently produced by the army, which owns just 4% of the land.”


  • wow you are in denial. Viva la Revolucion Cubana

  • Cuba does not “fare well” compared to many countries and certainly compared to the countries it beat or equalled before Castro. Castro turned the third developed country in the Americas in to a third world food dependent country with no real economy.
    Even Raul CAstro questioned Cuban statistics.

  • Yet Cuba fares well compared to many other countries according to the Human development index….. VIVA FIDEL

  • That makes a lot of sense as Castro destroyed the middle class and ruined the economy (from agriculture the industrial production) with the inefficient state controlled and Stalinist system.

    Corruption is rife. Food is scarce. Lots of unemployment and under-employment.

  • that doesnt make any sense…. Think about it..

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *