Partially financed by the Cuban-Venezuelan far right-wing of Miami, it approached the current politics of Washington towards Havana.
It did it in an editorial where it suggests that its essential purpose is to impose a régime change.
Such writing was published on Thursday entitled “Obama, Castro and the Embargo.”
It affirms that the new meeting between “ruler” Castro and president Obama, now in New York, left to many mouths opened.
On one side, it adds, Cuba demanding among other matters the end of what the editorial calls embargo.
On the other hand, Obama defending to eliminate a policy that has failed in more than 50 years.
It is worth clarifying that it did pay off thanks to those who have promoted it in Washington and Miami: its huge diplomatic isolation in that topic.
The first voting of the UN General Assembly on the “blockade to Cuba” took place in 1992 and it would repeat with that message for 20 of its yearly sessions until 2014.
In that first year, 57 countries rejected it and about twelve months ago 188 did the same, while Washington, supported by Israel, remained as main supported.
A detail worth mentioning is that never during that UN period has used the term “embargo” to substitute the most exact term “blockade”.
Now it’s speculated that after the well known gradual approach between Cuba and United States, the White House could abstain in the coming voting of the United Nations on this issue.
Las Americas newspaper point out that apparently Obama and Raúl coincide, but there’s a great difference between them on how to achieve the same objective.
Seemingly the Cuban régime conquered in the last days, but Obama insists “that only his strategy has changed to take a future of progress and human rights to the people of Cuba”, adds the editorial.
It reads that it’s a politics where the régime from Havana attempts to keep the cave in darkness or with a dim light.
At the same time, according to the article, the United States shows Cubans that the world “is full of light and opportunities.”
How to assess the meaning of those words amid the everyday tragedy of so many millions of inhabitants in the planet?
Simply, like a slap to human intelligence, a mock to the doomed of the Earth.
Just that blundered criterion strips from all seriousness everything written up to that point and what comes afterwards.
Like when they insist in the version that Washington has given plenty to Cuba without receiving something in return, mistake, firstly they would have to lift the blockade.
Then it resorts to a more aggressive approach when it outlines that in the long run “there won't be anyone capable to contain the huge influence that the most powerful nation in the world through its “soft power.”
The Editorial Staff of Las Americas finished with a sentence that strips naked all that insinuates very clearly:
“There isn’t a strong rock for soft waves.”
Hence, the forewarned war circling above Cubans bare its fangs wider enveloped in silk.
And Las Americas Newspaper, unlike others, strips it naked, untimed, and brutally.
Will any official or propagandist spokesman from Washington dare to deny it? The ball is in their turf.