Art by Antonio Guerrero, one of the Cuban 5

18 julio 2014

Hoy por la mañana las informaciones cablegráficas estaban saturadas con la insólita noticia de que un avión de la línea Malaysia Airlines había sido impactado a 10 100 metros de altura mientras volaba sobre el territorio de Ucrania, por la ruta bajo el control del gobierno belicista del rey del chocolate, Petro Poroshenko.

Cuba, que fue siempre solidaria con el pueblo de Ucrania, y en los días difíciles de la tragedia de Chernobil atendió la salud de muchos niños afectados por las nocivas radiaciones del accidente y siempre estará dispuesta a seguir haciéndolo, no puede dejar de expresar su repudio por la acción de semejante gobierno antirruso, antiucraniano y proimperialista.

A su vez, coincidiendo con el crimen del avión de Malasia, el primer ministro de Israel Benjamín Netanyahu, jefe de un estado nuclear, ordenaba a su ejército invadir la Franja de Gaza, donde habían muerto ya en pocos días cientos de palestinos, muchos de ellos niños. El Presidente de Estados Unidos apoyó la acción, calificando el repugnante crimen como acto de legítima defensa. Obama no apoya a David contra Goliat, sino a Goliat contra David.

Como se conoce, hombres y mujeres jóvenes del pueblo de Israel, bien preparados para el trabajo productivo, serán expuestos a morir sin honor ni gloria. Ignoro cuál será la doctrina militar de los palestinos, pero conozco que un combatiente dispuesto a morir puede defender hasta las ruinas de un edificio mientras tenga su fusil, como demostraron los heroicos defensores de Stalingrado.

Deseo solo hacer constar mi solidaridad con el heroico pueblo que defiende el último jirón de lo que fue su patria durante miles de años.

Fidel Castro Ruz
Julio 17 de 2014
11 y 14 p.m.

– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

zoltanzigedy@gmail.com

As the Sunni Jihadists of the Islamic State of Iraq and al-Sham conquer city after city in northern Iraq and as black-clad soldiers from Shiite military muster to repel them, it is tempting to blame the chaos there on ancient religious hatreds. But the strife in Iraq today is less the mystifying product of of primordial grievances than the predictable result of very modern power politics.
The US shouldn’t repeat the mistake made two decades ago, when a generation of Western leaders explained away the wars that ripped Yugoslavia apart as the result of primeval ethnic hatreds. Then as now, such resignation is an easy way to avoid hard thinking. Hatreds Bred by Power Politics, Daniel Benjamin (Wall Street Journal, June 28-29, 2014)

Benjamin, a former US State Department coordinator, is right on both counts: politics fundamentally drives the crisis in the Middle East and simplistic, but convenient explanations for the catastrophic events supplant any real analysis.

Apologists in both Parties and the supplicant media want to pass off the blame to the victims of the quagmire that the US and its allies have created in the Middle East. They insist that it is not a malignant foreign policy designed to advance US corporate interests and install puppet governments lurking behind the violence and chaos, but tribal and religious animosities, disdain for “human rights,” and ignorance of “democratic” values that thwart the “civilizing” mission of the US and the EU. Just as US ruling elites evaded the lessons of defeat in Vietnam, their twenty-first century counterparts revive the same chauvinistic, self-serving explanations for the hatred and mass slaughter they perpetrate.

To his credit, Benjamin insists on more nourishing explanations. As an insider and participant in shaping US policy, he knows better; he knows that interests– economic and politic interests– play the decisive role in shaping the events now spinning out of control in Iraq. He concedes, regarding “the demons of sectarianism,” that “[a]t key points, the US has even unintentionally abetted them…” [My italics] While this confesses far more than most of the US foreign policy commentariat wants to admit, it falls far short of the truth…. To continue the article, go to: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

The Shame of Iraq
– from Zoltan Zigedy is available at:
http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

The close of the Second World War saw the rise of Arab nationalism, a movement that promised to unite much of the Middle East around independence and social advancement. The imposition of a Jewish theocratic state in the midst of Arab homelands no doubt accelerated this movement, as did later imperialist meddling such as the Suez intervention of 1956.

Both Nasserism and the Ba’ath Party were early vehicles of a growing nationalism centered on an Arab identity. Nasser’s engagement with non-alignment in the Cold War, his secularism, his advocacy of land reform and Egyptian socialism resonated with the Arab masses. Similarly, the pan-Arab Ba’ath Party organized around unity, independence, and socialism– all with a decidedly secular tone. Islam, rather than the basis for identity, was second to ethic national identities that proudly offered Islam to the world as a gift from the Middle Eastern peoples. This secular trend grew rapidly, resulting in a unified United Arab Republic in 1958, a development that was soon terminated by a coup in Syria.

Of course there were counter trends, reactionary trends in the Arab world that worked against the progressive, secular movement. Centered on the oil-driven dynasties, these forces, frightened by Arab nationalism, aligned themselves with the imperialists, and were vigorously anti-socialist. They offered an ideology counter posing rigid Islamic fundamentalism to secular nationalism. Of course their Western partners shared their hostility and were eager to exploit their influence and resources against Arab nationalism… To read the rest of the article, please go to: http://zzs-blg.blogspot.com/

FULL PAGE ADVERTISEMENT

WALL STREET JOURNAL and

NEW YORK TIMES

Sunday, June 22, 2014

ARGENTINA WANTS TO CONTINUE PAYING

ITS DEBTS BUT THEY WON’T LET IT

Argentina wants to continue paying its debts, just as it has been doing since 2005, but this is now hindered by Judge Thomas Griesa’s ruling and by the US Supreme Court’s refusal to take on the case

The default of the Argentine Republic in 2001 was the biggest one in the world’s financial history, largely exceeding 100 billion US dollars. Decades of overindebtedness and low growth left the country with a debt amounting to over 160% of its GDP, an unemployment rate close to 25% and over 50% of its population in poverty. Since 2003, several measures were implemented that were aimed at normalizing the country’s international financial relations. The fundamental principle of all negotiations conducted with creditors was always the same: in order to be able to pay, Argentina must first grow, so as to generate the resources that will enable it to honour its commitments. Growth to enable payments has been the hallmark of all debt negotiations conducted by Argentina since 2003. Under this approach, for over a decade, Argentina’s economy has been growing, bringing down unemployment and continuing to reduce its debt, to such an extent that foreign currency-denominated public debt owed to the private sector currently does not exceed 8% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

The process to restructure the debt that was defaulted on in 2001 still continues. Along this difficult road, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund was repaid in full, an agreement was reached with creditors in connection with the final awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), obligations to international organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and the Andean Development Corporation were also honoured in full and, recently, payment over a period of up to 7 years was agreed with the Paris Club, in addition to the compensation given to the company REPSOL, within the context of the retaking of control over 51% of the shares in oil company YPF.

Without doubt, the most complex problem was to reach a deal with the thousands of holders of debt in default since 2001, amounting to 81 billion US dollars. But Argentina was successful in this regard … it reached an agreement for a voluntary exchange of defaulted instruments for new bonds involving a haircut, longer term and lower rate, which ensured that the commitment undertaken by the country would be sustainable. The exchange offer was made in 2005 and again in 2010, finding acceptance among 92.4% of creditors. One of the keys to success was, as is customary in such transactions, the fact that both Argentinean legislation as well as the prospectus of the instruments issued prevent the offering of better conditions to creditors who failed to accept the offer (holdouts). Since 2003, through the efforts of all of the Argentine people, debt service payments related to the whole restructured debt have been made punctually, in an amount of over 190 billion dollars and with no access to international financial markets.

7% of bondholders did not accept the restructuring. The vulture funds that secured a ruling in their favour are not original lenders to Argentina. They purchased bonds in default at obscenely low prices for the sole purposes of engaging in litigation against Argentina and making an enormous profit. Paul Singer’s NML fund, for example, in 2008 paid only 48.7 million US dollars for bonds in default. Judge Griesa’s ruling now orders that it be paid an amount of 832 million U.S. dollars, i.e., a gain of 1,608% in only six years.

Argentina has appealed against New York District Court Thomas Griesa’s ruling, which orders payment of 1.5 billion dollars to be made on June 30, which is the due date of the next payment related to the restructured debt. However, it is estimated that the total bonds in default that did not enter the restructuring processes amount to 15 billion US dollars, i.e. over 50% of Argentina’s foreign currency reserves. Judge Griesa’s ruling would push the country to a new default. This is so because if Argentina does pay the 1.5 billion, it will have to pay 15 billion in the immediate future. To make matters worse, under the laws of Argentina and the clauses governing the restructured instruments (RUFO), if the vulture funds were to be paid, all other bondholders would demand equal treatment, involving an estimated cost of over 120 billion US dollars. If, on the other hand, Argentina does not pay the vulture funds, Judge Griesa’s ruling forbids Argentina to make payments to 92.4% of the bondholders who did accept the restructuring, as the judge has issued orders to the Bank of New York and to the settlement agencies for them not to pay.

In other words: paying the vulture funds is a path leading to default, and if they are not paid, Judge Griesa’s order entails jeopardizing the right of the bondholders to collect their debt restructured in 2005 and 2010.

Meanwhile, the vulture funds have invested millions of dollars in lobbying and propaganda, trying to make the whole world believe that Argentina does not pay its debts and refuses to negotiate. However, precisely since 2003, the way out of default while reducing debt was by negotiating and paying. Even today, Argentina still keeps the possibility of an exchange open for all those who respect the principle of equality. A decision of the U.S. Judiciary favourable to 1.6% of the bondholders, who are specialized in litigation, jeopardizes a debt restructuring voluntarily accepted by 92.4% of the creditors. The legal interpretations relied upon in Judge Griesa’s rulings have been called into question by the most varied parties: the governments of France, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay; settlement agency Euroclear and the Fintech fund. Joseph Stiglitz, Anne Kruger, Nouriel Roubini have also made statements along the same lines, as well as CELAC, the G24, G77, and 106 British parliamentarians. Even the US government and the IMF have shown concern at the global implications of the ruling.

This ruling seeks to put Argentina in a delicate position, but also any other country that may have to undertake a restructuring of its debts in the future. Under the domestic legislation of any country, when there is a suspension of payments and 66% of creditors agree to a deal, the rest are also obliged to accept. As there is no legal framework governing the default of a sovereign country, this precedent means that even if 99.9% voluntary acceptance were to be achieved, 0.1% of creditors could invalidate the whole restructuring.

The will of Argentina is clear: we expect a judicial decision that promotes fair and balanced negotiating conditions to resolve this protracted and difficult dispute that has affected, affects and will continue to affect the Argentina people due to the voracity of a minute group of speculators.

– Presidency of the Nation –

– Argentine Republic –

Contact: Analia Rach Tel. +54 (11) 4114-9595

Email: privada@jefatura.gob.ar

The default of the Argentine Republic in 2001 was the biggest one in the world’s financial history, largely exceeding 100 billion US dollars. Decades of overindebtedness and low growth left the country with a debt amounting to over 160% of its GDP, an unemployment rate close to 25% and over 50% of its population in poverty. Since 2003, several measures were implemented that were aimed at normalizing the country’s international financial relations. The fundamental principle of all negotiations conducted with creditors was always the same: in order to be able to pay, Argentina must first grow, so as to generate the resources that will enable it to honour its commitments. Growth to enable payments has been the hallmark of all debt negotiations conducted by Argentina since 2003. Under this approach, for over a decade, Argentina’s economy has been growing, bringing down unemployment and continuing to reduce its debt, to such an extent that foreign currency-denominated public debt owed to the private sector currently does not exceed 8% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product.

The process to restructure the debt that was defaulted on in 2001 still continues. Along this difficult road, the debt owed to the International Monetary Fund was repaid in full, an agreement was reached with creditors in connection with the final awards of the International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID), obligations to international organizations like the Inter-American Development Bank, the World Bank and the Andean Development Corporation were also honoured in full and, recently, payment over a period of up to 7 years was agreed with the Paris Club, in addition to the compensation given to the company REPSOL, within the context of the retaking of control over 51% of the shares in oil company YPF.

Without doubt, the most complex problem was to reach a deal with the thousands of holders of debt in default since 2001, amounting to 81 billion US dollars. But Argentina was successful in this regard … it reached an agreement for a voluntary exchange of defaulted instruments for new bonds involving a haircut, longer term and lower rate, which ensured that the commitment undertaken by the country would be sustainable. The exchange offer was made in 2005 and again in 2010, finding acceptance among 92.4% of creditors. One of the keys to success was, as is customary in such transactions, the fact that both Argentinean legislation as well as the prospectus of the instruments issued prevent the offering of better conditions to creditors who failed to accept the offer (holdouts). Since 2003, through the efforts of all of the Argentine people, debt service payments related to the whole restructured debt have been made punctually, in an amount of over 190 billion dollars and with no access to international financial markets.

7% of bondholders did not accept the restructuring. The vulture funds that secured a ruling in their favour are not original lenders to Argentina. They purchased bonds in default at obscenely low prices for the sole purposes of engaging in litigation against Argentina and making an enormous profit. Paul Singer’s NML fund, for example, in 2008 paid only 48.7 million US dollars for bonds in default. Judge Griesa’s ruling now orders that it be paid an amount of 832 million U.S. dollars, i.e., a gain of 1,608% in only six years.

Argentina has appealed against New York District Court Thomas Griesa’s ruling, which orders payment of 1.5 billion dollars to be made on June 30, which is the due date of the next payment related to the restructured debt. However, it is estimated that the total bonds in default that did not enter the restructuring processes amount to 15 billion US dollars, i.e. over 50% of Argentina’s foreign currency reserves. Judge Griesa’s ruling would push the country to a new default. This is so because if Argentina does pay the 1.5 billion, it will have to pay 15 billion in the immediate future. To make matters worse, under the laws of Argentina and the clauses governing the restructured instruments (RUFO), if the vulture funds were to be paid, all other bondholders would demand equal treatment, involving an estimated cost of over 120 billion US dollars. If, on the other hand, Argentina does not pay the vulture funds, Judge Griesa’s ruling forbids Argentina to make payments to 92.4% of the bondholders who did accept the restructuring, as the judge has issued orders to the Bank of New York and to the settlement agencies for them not to pay.

In other words: paying the vulture funds is a path leading to default, and if they are not paid, Judge Griesa’s order entails jeopardizing the right of the bondholders to collect their debt restructured in 2005 and 2010.

Meanwhile, the vulture funds have invested millions of dollars in lobbying and propaganda, trying to make the whole world believe that Argentina does not pay its debts and refuses to negotiate. However, precisely since 2003, the way out of default while reducing debt was by negotiating and paying. Even today, Argentina still keeps the possibility of an exchange open for all those who respect the principle of equality. A decision of the U.S. Judiciary favourable to 1.6% of the bondholders, who are specialized in litigation, jeopardizes a debt restructuring voluntarily accepted by 92.4% of the creditors. The legal interpretations relied upon in Judge Griesa’s rulings have been called into question by the most varied parties: the governments of France, Mexico, Brazil and Uruguay; settlement agency Euroclear and the Fintech fund. Joseph Stiglitz, Anne Kruger, Nouriel Roubini have also made statements along the same lines, as well as CELAC, the G24, G77, and 106 British parliamentarians. Even the US government and the IMF have shown concern at the global implications of the ruling.

This ruling seeks to put Argentina in a delicate position, but also any other country that may have to undertake a restructuring of its debts in the future. Under the domestic legislation of any country, when there is a suspension of payments and 66% of creditors agree to a deal, the rest are also obliged to accept. As there is no legal framework governing the default of a sovereign country, this precedent means that even if 99.9% voluntary acceptance were to be achieved, 0.1% of creditors could invalidate the whole restructuring.

The will of Argentina is clear: we expect a judicial decision that promotes fair and balanced negotiating conditions to resolve this protracted and difficult dispute that has affected, affects and will continue to affect the Argentina people due to the voracity of a minute group of speculators.

– Presidency of the Nation –

– Argentine Republic –

Contact: Analia Rach Tel. +54 (11) 4114-9595

Email: privada@jefatura.gob.ar

Minstry of Foreign Affairs. Esmeralda 1212, C.A.B. A C1007ABR, Argentine Republic.

Tel. +54(11)4819-7000 – info@cancilleria.gob.ar  – http://mrecic.gov.ar/

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article38857.htm

By Dennis J. Kucinich

June 18, 2014 “ICH” – “HP” – As Iraq descends into chaos again, more than a decade after “Mission Accomplished,” media commentators and politicians have mostly agreed upon calling the war a “mistake.” But the “mistake” rhetoric is the language of denial, not contrition: it minimizes the Iraq War’s disastrous consequences, removes blame, and deprives Americans of any chance to learn from our generation’s foreign policy disaster. The Iraq War was not a “mistake” — it resulted from calculated deception. The painful, unvarnished fact is that we were lied to. Now is the time to have the willingness to say that.

In fact, the truth about Iraq was widely available, but it was ignored. There were no WMD. Saddam Hussein had nothing to do with 9/11. The war wasn’t about liberating the Iraqi people. I said this in Congress in 2002. Millions of people who marched in America in protest of the war knew the truth, but were maligned by members of both parties for opposing the president in a time of war — and even leveled with the spurious charge of “not supporting the troops.”

I’ve written and spoken widely about this topic, so today I offer two ways we can begin to address our role:

1) President Obama must tell us the truth about Iraq and the false scenario that caused us to go to war.

When Obama took office in 2008, he announced that his administration would not investigate or prosecute the architects of the Iraq War. Essentially, he suspended public debate about the war. That may have felt good in the short term for those who wanted to move on, but when you’re talking about a war initiated through lies, bygones can’t be bygones.

The unwillingness to confront the truth about the Iraq War has induced a form of amnesia which is hazardous to our nation’s health. Willful forgetting doesn’t heal, it opens the door to more lying. As today’s debate ensues about new potential military “solutions” to stem violence in Iraq, let’s remember how and why we intervened in Iraq in 2003.

2) Journalists and media commentators should stop giving inordinate air and print time to people who were either utterly wrong in their support of the war or willful in their calculations to make war.

By and large, our Fourth Estate accepted uncritically the imperative for war described by top administration officials and congressional leaders. The media fanned the flames of war by not giving adequate coverage to the arguments against military intervention.

President Obama didn’t start the Iraq War, but he has the opportunity now to tell the truth. That we were wrong to go in. That the cause of war was unjust. That more problems were created by military intervention than solved. That the present violence and chaos in Iraq derives from the decision which took America to war in 2003. More than a decade later, it should not take courage to point out the Iraq war was based on lies.

Follow Dennis on Facebook: www.facebook.com/denniskucinich

By W. T. Whitney Jr.

General John Kelly heads the U.S. Southern Command. As such he directs military operations throughout Latin America and the Caribbean and wages war against drug trafficking and associated crime in Honduras. Kelly’s visit to Tegucigalpa on June 2 meant so much to Honduran President Juan Orlando Hernández that Kelly got to attend a session of Honduras’ Council of Defense and National Security .

Kelly announced that, “the work that this government has undertaken [against drug trafficking] in these last months is incredible.” He lauded Honduras’ new policy of extraditing accused drug offenders to the United States. Hernández characterized Kelly is a “great friend of Honduras” and observed that his police and soldiers take encouragement from Kelly’s kind words.

Honduras’ role as a transfer point for drugs heading north and a murder epidemic there blamed on drug-related crime serve as rationale for U.S. military intervention. Honduras’ murder rate is the world’s highest. A congressional report indicated that as of February 3013, the United States had provided $163 million in military and police assistance over three years; $58.2 million more were anticipated during the then current year. The U.S. military operates three naval bases in Honduras. Its large Palmerola Air Base supports long distance flights.

But U.S. crime fighting in Honduras is not all that it seems. Police, soldiers, and paramilitaries, for example, are killing children, many of whom are engaged in criminal activities instigated by adults. The Casa Alianza children’s rights group reported that between January 1 and March 30, 2014, 270 persons less than 23 years of age were murdered. That group’s director José Guadalupe Ruelas declared on television on May 5 that, “one million Honduran children are not in school, 330,000 child laborers are being exploited, and every year 8000 children leave the country without an adult, fleeing violence.” Yet on May 9, “military police … savagely beat” and detained Ruelas.

Killings may have little to do with drug transactions. On May 4, for example, murderers hit a human rights activist and community leader in San Pedro Sula . On May 12 gunfire wounded a Tegucigalpa councilman who was an opposition activist. The next day armed men killed an agrarian rights activist in Baja Aguan. On May 16, someone shot and killed the popular mayor of Iriona. On May 22 in La Ceiba shots from a passing vehicle killed a taxi driver and two passengers, one a prison guard. Assailants there that day killed a forestry engineer who reported illegal logging. On May 28 in Copán department, a radio journalist and human rights defender was killed. On May 10, heavily armed men broke into the house in Yoro Department where eight Cuban doctors on a solidarity mission were living. The intruders handcuffed, beat and threatened to kill the physicians.

And in May Congressperson Jan Schakowsky’s (D-IL) widened the U. S. discussion on violence in Honduras. Her letter to Secretary of State John Kerry, signed by 108 colleagues, urged the “State Department to use its leverage to urge the Honduran government to protect the fundamental human rights of its citizens, end the use of military forces for law enforcement, investigate and prosecute abuses.”

A military coup removed populist President Jose Manuel Zelaya on June 28, 2009. Violence and social turmoil wracking Honduras since then suggest politics are at work. Conditions worsened after January 27, 2014 when right wing President Hernández took office.

Poverty in Honduras is 60 percent, and productive land is concentrated in very few hands. Defending establishment interests, the Liberal and National Parties have controlled Honduran politics for decades. Oligarchs arranged for Zelaya’s ouster, something U.S. Ambassador Hugo Lorens knew about beforehand. U.S. military and intelligence operatives had allegedly communicated with perpetrators . The plane taking Zelaya to exile in Costa Rica stopped en route at the U.S. Palmerola Air Base.

Formed after the coup, the National Front for Popular Resistance (FNRP) resisted, first in the streets and then though its new LIBRE political party. Campaigning for a constituent assembly and social justice, the mildly socialist Libre Party backed Xiomara Castro as its presidential candidate. She had led in polls prior to the November, 2013 election, widely regarded as fraudulent. National Party candidate Hernández won by eight percentage points.

The pre-election killing of 18 LIBRE activists followed murders of opposition activists, unionists, teachers, and students ongoing since 2009. Now, according to a police whistleblower, “Summary executions have increased [while] public security is being totally militarized and the military now controls several institutions civilians should direct … A] blank check [exists] for repression of the political and social opposition, criminalization and prosecution of protest, and violation of human rights.”

The atmosphere is toxic. On May 14 the National Party president of Honduras’ Congress used police to expel all 37 LIBRE Party congressional deputies. Security forces used tear gas, pepper spray, and batons. The deputies had wanted to debate agrarian reform, corruption, and model cities – the previous government’s plan for privately-governed havens for corporations. Television showed police carrying away ex-President Zelaya, now a congressman and head of LIBRE Party’s parliamentary bench.

Agrarian rights activists face danger, especially in Baja Aguan where African palm plantations and palm oil processing facilities are centered. On May 21, 315 soldiers, police, and 40 private security operatives expelled small farmers occupying two plantations; they wounded two and arrested 14. That scenario has recurred often throughout the region for several years. Although legislation in the 1980’s and Zelaya-era regulations later on made land available to peasants, agribusiness impresarios, notably Dinant Corporation owner Miguel Facussé, usurped large tracts. Between 2010 and 2013, public and private security forces killed 102 small farmers who resisted.

The Committee for Free Expression indicated recently that 173 journalists, teachers, judicial personnel, and human rights advocates were assaulted in 2013, with state security forces carrying out half the attacks; there were 11 murders. Between January 2010 and July 2013, 36 journalists or “social communicators” were killed.

U.S. mainstream media pay little attention to violence in Honduras. Nevertheless, Rep. Schakowsky and her colleagues took a stand: they urged Secretary of State Kerry to “fully enforce the Leahy Law, which prohibits assistance to individuals or units of any foreign military or police body that commit gross human rights abuses with impunity.”

Yet General John Kelly takes that legal requirement, and presumably his civilian overseers, with a grain of salt. Testifying before a congressional committee on April 29, he complained that the Leahy Law sometimes interferes with the Southern Command mission. Because of that, Kelly uses Colombian soldiers rather than his own.

“When we ask them to go somewhere else and train the Mexicans, the Hondurans, the Guatemalans, the Panamanians, they will do it almost without asking … It’s important for them to go,” he explained, “because I’m – at least on the military side – restricted from working with some of these countries because of limitations … based on past sins. And I’ll let it go at that.”

General Kelly may have been thinking of the new “TIGRES” militarized police formation established by President Hernández for “direct combat with transnational organized crime.” U.S. military advisors worked with Colombia’s “Jungle School” (Escuela de Selva) to train TIGRES recruits.

“I did what’s right and have never endangered anyone.”

That’s the assertion of Hero of the Cuban Republic Ramón Labañino Salazar who was unjustly
sentenced to 30 years in prison that he is serving in a federal prison in Kentucky, in the United
States. Now 51 years of age, he was 35 years old when they arrested them that early morning on
September 12, 1998.

Author: Deisy Francis Mexidor, June 9, 2014.
http://www.granma.cu/cuba/2014-06-09/hice-lo-justo-y-jamas-he-danado-a-nadie !

That day in September, 2009 when they proceeded to resentence him in Miami, in the United
States, Ramón Labañino Salazar, who was still carrying a life sentence plus 18 years in prison,
entered the judicial chamber with his hands held high, as a victory symbol.

Glancing around, he looked at all those present in the audience until he found his beloved
Elizabeth. He smiled at her as if he were the happiest of mortals and with his look covered her
with kisses. It was a fleeting moment but at the same time almost eternal.

There were so many things being said at that moment! It was just like the one that happened
later when he learned that his new sentence, no less unjust, would remove 30 years of physical
liberty from his life. Then too his captors couldn’t lock up his soul and spirit.

“I am by nature an optimistic man,” confessed Labañino, one of five Cuban anti-terrorists
sentenced to long terms in U. S. prisons.

In response to a questionnaire, the Hero of the Republic of Cuba pointed out that, “I have
always found reasons for taking a positive point of view of everything happening around me,
including the fights, the injustices, and the hard things one lives with and sees in prison. He
shares that title with his comrades Gerardo Hernández, Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González,
and René González. (The last two are now in Cuba but not before they satisfied all sanctions
against them.)

The Five are brothers in the same struggle, although they are confined in prisons far apart from
each other. They took to using “us” instead of “I” and what was important for one took on a
collective nature.

They did this from the beginning and every time a message arrives from them, the farewell
invariably finishes with “five hugs.” That’s how Ramón ended these replies sent from the
penitentiary in Ashland, Kentucky.

The son of Nereyda Salazar Verduy (deceased) and Holmes Labañino Cantillo, Ramón was born
June 9, 1963, in the Havana district of Marianao. He graduated with top academic recognition,
qualifying in economics at the University of Havana.

His greatest treasures are the daughters he adores, Aili (from his first marriage) Laura, and
Lizbeth, as he tirelessly repeats.

When he left home to work abroad, precisely in February, 1992, Elizabeth Palmeiro, his wife,
was barely eight weeks pregnant with Laura. He could not enjoy that period or the arrival into
the world of Lizbeth whom he only came to know in February, 1997, just after she was born.

His comings and goings in and out of the country and then prison made it so that despite being
married for 23 years, Ramón and Elizabeth have only lived together, without being apart, for
barely two years. They’ve been separated the rest of the time.

Nevertheless, they built a family together, and she, behind the lines, waits for him dealing with
the family project that came about despite obstacles. There they are, “his beautiful women,”
as he proudly says.

Question – How does a man succeed in overcoming great adversities? Where does one find
such strength?
Answer – Above all, when one is convinced that what he is doing is always correct, just, and
legal, that one defends a humane cause, that one has never put anybody or any thing in
danger, and that, on the contrary, he has sacrificed everything for the common good, for
people’s lives – innocent people – then those ideas themselves lend enormous force of will and
persistence against all adversities and “adversaries.” The fight is just. Victory will indeed have
to be sweet.

Q. – What do you recall about Ramón as a boy and young university student?
A. – I think I am an eternal child. That’s what my wife Elizabeth, my daughters, and whoever
knows me say. I don’t know if that will always be true, or if they say it through the love they
show me, but I do believe I’ve never lost (nor ever will) that youthful, smiling, cheerful, and
optimistic spirit that helps one so much to live and struggle. I was that way as a child: smiley
and very timid, very much so, I would say. And I always was enthralled by studying and doing
sports.

I remember from childhood that my little sister Laide began calling me “Papi.” I think that was
because I took care of her a lot, and my mother instilled in us the idea that the family’s oldest
brother is like a second father. And I think I accepted that role quite seriously, so much so that
even today, many call me “Papi.” And that’s something my daughters resent, because they
want to be the only ones saying that to me, but they know very well that I am the unique, the
one and only “Papi,” from the soul to infinity, and that’s important.

I really enjoyed my university years. As I said, studying and doing sports captivated me, and I
could do both there fully. Also I was a student assistant in statistical mathematics beginning
with the second year of the course. Sometimes I gave review courses and classes to comrades
in the lower years or in our own year. It’s something I always liked a lot, teaching. I could
practice judo and karate in the university, which was my dream in sports. It was a period of
learning, but above all of growth. It helped me a lot in my formation and in my convictions in
every sense, something for which I am infinitely grateful to Cuba, to our Revolution, to our
socialist system.

Q. – Do they see you as the big one of the group?
A. – That’s one point of view of those who see me. I don’t see myself as strong, rather I work to
be “considered” thin. Of course, that continually costs me much effort to believe it myself. I
do sports for pleasure, also because I need to get rid of so much stress, and because I feel
much better and useful after each workout. I try to keep myself healthy in spite of the
heartaches, since it’s our way of fighting and overcoming, of not letting ourselves fall apart or
be destroyed. Now I myself am doing weights and long walks inside the prison, some handball,
a lot of chess. That makes me feel healthy, vital, and ready for everyday struggles and ones in
the future that surely will come.

Q. – Who did you want to resemble?
A. – I myself sought guidance through example from the great ones, not to be them, since it’s
impossible to attain icon status. But I have greatly admired and would try to be like Che, like
our immortal Antonio Maceo, like José Martí, like Fidel, like Raúl, like Bolívar, like Sucre, and
now a lot like our Hugo Chávez. They are in essence my everyday examples. I would be very
pleased, simply, to be like every man who has decency and honor, but that would make this list
too extensive.

A. – Could you let us know what you like by way of reading – historical personalities, fiction,
[even television] series…?
A. – I am going to reduce the list to five for each category. I don’t want to bore you or be too
exhaustive, but, look, among my favorite readings are: “One Hundred Years of Solitude” and
“Love in the Time of Cholera,” by Gabriel García Márquez; “The Kingdom of this World,” by
Alejo Carpentier: “Simple Verses,” by José Martí; and “The House of the Spirits, by Isabel
Allende.

From television series I can name “In Silence It Had to Be” and “Julito the Fisherman,” two
excellent Cuban productions; and from another area – adventures – where I saw “The
Commandos of Silence.” And I take the occasion to ask why they don’t make new versions of all
these series on Cuban television. As to films, I point to “Strawberry and Chocolate” and
‘Undercover” (“Clandestinos”), where our much-admired Isabel Santos took the lead role.
In regard to fictitious characters, there are these: Don Quijote and Sancho Panza, David in “In
Silence It Had to Be,” interpreted by the late actor Sergio Corrieri; “Julito the Fisherman,”
immortalized by René de la Cruz; and Bruce Lee in some of his films on martial arts, to mention
a few.

Historical figures that I feel are examples for imitation are: Simón Bolívar, Ernesto Che
Guevara, Antonio Maceo, José Martí, and Fidel Castro.

P. – They arrested you when you were 35 years old. What is your concept of time?
A. – Time is a relative concept. If I think about myself, I think time does not pass. When I think
of my daughters becoming women, when I look into the eyes of my beloved Eli, time becomes
infinite for me, cruel, implacable. On that score, I go back to another time, one of laughter
and joys, of return and happiness, to the precious time of our future, free in Cuba – and with
that (my optimism), I stop. You already know I am a huge optimist, that I am going to remain
that way, and so I am happy.

P. – Imagine you are a poet improviser and they give you a “forced foot” that says, “…I am
this kind of guy.” (1)

A. – I am this kind of guy
exactly how you see him
not right not wrong
simple, no frenzy.
With Cuba free I learned
That the way is to love struggle
And this threatening fight today
Is for the truth I knew
And I will continue being like this,
A simple guy with decency
That is worth much more than gold,
One who is honored to die as I lived.

Q. – If you close your eyes now, what do you see?
A. – I see Cuba, a beach blue, clean, and dazzling. I see Eli, my daughters, all my family, my
people. I see laughter, joy, eternity. That way I make my freedom tangible and real. And I know
it’s certain.

(1) A “forced foot” (pie forzada) is a usually ten-line bit of improvised poetry that must end
with a proposed verse, or as with Ramon, begin with it.

Translated by W. T. Whitney Jr. for www.letcubalive.org