Resurrecting outdated Monroe Doctrine reflects Washington's entrenched backyard thinking

Ahead of his visit to Latin America, U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson said Thursday that Washington's Monroe Doctrine "clearly has been a success" and "is as relevant today as it was the day it was written" in 1823.

The doctrine was first put forward to drive Europeans away from the region almost two centuries ago. With such an interventionist foreign policy, Washington officially staked out its backyard.

In 2013, then U.S. President Barack Obama announced that the era of the Monroe Doctrine had ended and predicted a new relationship with Latin America featuring equal rights. Today, with Tillerson's remarks, the Trump administration is signaling that it wants to resurrect the obsolete foreign policy.

Over the past year, U.S. President Donald Trump has brandished a big stick against Cuba and Venezuela. His government has abandoned a rapprochement with Cuba and issued a series of sanctions against Venezuela with the purpose of promoting a change of government in the country.

Ever since the doctrine was first formulated, the United States has sought to control and manipulate the region through direct and indirect interventions, and to extract huge resources and wealth from local countries.

To guarantee its almost absolute control over the continent, Washington has, over the past two centuries, carried out a host of military interventions in the Dominican Republic, Grenada, Panama, Cuba, Chile, Guatemala, Nicaragua and Haiti.

Many historians and critics have observed that "Americans" in the phrase "America for the Americans" is limited to "the United States."

The region's excessive dependence on the United States neither brought it prosperity nor security, and this explains why the region has decided to expand its relations, both economic and political ones, to other countries in the world, to reduce such dependence and seek a greater integration into the wider international community.

Also in his speech delivered hours before flying to the region, Tillerson warned Latin American governments of the advance of "predatory" foreign countries. Similarly, over two centuries the Monroe Doctrine aimed to avoid interventions from outside the American continent.

He even labeled China and Russia as "imperial powers" in Latin America. Such blunt lecturing shows that the Trump White House still intends to keep Latin America strictly within its sphere of influence. It is like putting up a big sign that says: "Stay away! I own it."

Also, Tillerson's accusations against China are as ridiculous as they are self-defeating.

But Chinese policies, which promote free trade and globalization, including the Belt and Road Initiative, are now offering welcome alternatives for Latin America.

China is now a major international buyer of Latin American bulk commodities, and imports more and more agricultural and high value-added products from the region. China's investment in and financial cooperation with Latin American countries are in full accordance with commercial rules and local laws and regulations.

While Beijing is trying to help Latin Americans realize their dream of development and prosperity, Washington is becoming more protectionist against the region, and seeking to resurrect a policy born in the age of colonialism.

To Latin Americans and the world, it is becoming increasingly clear which country is really the imperialist power.

  • Published in World

Centrism in Cuba: An Old Trick Revealed (+ Photos)

CubaSi publishes the preface of the book “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” that will be launched today via Facebook Live.

As it reads the title, this book describes that political trend with increasingly prominence in the Cuban media environment, especially after the rapprochement between Cuba and the U.S.

President Barack Obama himself acknowledged that this old policy followed by Washington against Cuba for more than 50 years had failed.

If you follow recent events, you realize that traditional counter-revolution in Cuba, created and backed by successive U.S. administrations, had disappeared from the mass media until Trump brought them to life with his recent speech and thanks to major news agencies about Cuba.

Having Venezuela as their main target, major news agencies have dedicated to speak off “thawing” and Cuba as a tourist destination in recent months. Nonetheless, this new approach does not mean that Cuba faded away from the world news panorama. Instead, Cuba has taken a secondary role especially on the Internet where allegedly independent journalists are the target of their editorial, political interests.

FormatFactoryCENTRISMO 1
Elier Ramírez visit CubaSi.

The retrograde speech of the Anti-Cuban mafia in Miami has been replaced by the portray of the Cuban reality proposed by “reformists or super revolutionaries” who seem to have discovered the absolute truth of what is happening in Cuba and what the faith of island should be.

After reading their texts, you can sense that these “centrists” —by using different literary, academic, or pure reporting styles— target a wide range of public, especially the revolutionaries. They are “experts” in highlighting their “non-confrontation” editorial line: the model of a failed socialism, pointing out its shortage, emphasizing on the economic field by comparing ours with those of developed countries.

centrismo portada

Likewise, they now propose formulas to rethink socialism from new political and philosophical perspectives (multiparty system, constitutional and democratic reforms, electoral system, and the leading role of the Cuba’s Communist Party).

Likewise, centrists highlight the individual frustration before the political model as well as the inability to achieve his/her goals for the future, main cause of the migration in the country.

They criticize and attack the management of Cuban revolutionary institutions, especially those owned by the State, the government, and political organizations. They explicitly drift apart from government to trigger negative stereotypes on the intended public.

In line with Obama’s speech when he visited Havana, and having in common the private sector associated to an upper-middle class (according to their wealth), this sector owns a prosperous future and set them up to the State, which is represented as an obstacle to the personal growth of individuals inside the society (they grow “despite…” and not “thanks to” the State).

ubieta jose raul
Cuban intellectuals visit Cubasi on the ocassion of the book launching: Enrique Ubieta.

They equally intend to highlight the existence of marginal spaces so they can portray a heartbreaking view caused by the abandonment and the mismanagement of the State and its institutions.

They insist on recalling and manipulate, again and again, prejudice or revolutionary measures adopted and overcome throughout time, especially issues related to homophobe (UMAP) and the cultural policy (Grey five-year period). They champion professional sports and call for the approval of laws allowing natural people and legal entities to be separated from State policies.

No need to say that these “centrists” are the champions of the so-called Third Way. A Third Way as an old trick of the bourgeois social democracy to calm the consequences of the excesses of the free market.

Paradoxically, the Third Way demands a rise in the regulation by the State of the inequality, corruption, marginalization, and other ills in the Capitalism. Meanwhile, these “centrists” look for an augment in the power of the market for the small or large private enterprise as compensation of the State power and excessive inclusion of Socialism. In two words, more capitalism.

FormatFactoryCENTRISMO 3
Iroel Sanchez in Cubasi

But the “centrists” of the “Third Way” behave as inconsistently as an alleged impartiality in their publications. That press picks their information, which usually tackles negative elements. Talking about journalism, these “focused journalists and intellectuals” justify their “essential” informative mission with the “information gaps” of the revolutionary press. Actually, disoriented to the right, it is logical that they fill the agenda of the propaganda siege against the island. Therefore, they collaborate, consciously or not, with the oldest and most efficient of all Empire strategies: divide and rule.

It is hardly surprising that these “correspondents” attend to courses in countries like the U.S., Germany, or Netherlands; countries that seem to be worried about the information Cubans should receive. If the traditional counter-revolution —and some “centrists” as Raul Capote revealed in his article— was entertained by the USIS in Havana with dinners and meetings, the “centrists” are now having dinner in embassies that had never been worried about Cuba before. If there is an international delegation visit, there go the “centrists” to perform the welcoming ceremony and received a tap on their shoulders. Thus, these people pose as private political intermediaries.

Without apparent cause, some “centrists” reacted badly to Trump’s speech last June 16th. Two days after the speech, an AP press release noted: “When former U.S. President Barack Obama announced the restoration of the Cuba-U.S. relations in 2014, hundreds of people were encouraged to undertake press projects, private business like restaurants and guesthouses.”

FormatFactoryCENTRISMO 2
Javier Gómez, accompanied by Giusette León, Journalist of Cubasi

Trump, by the way, championed —like Obama did— the help to the private sector (the “independent” media belong to this sector) despite his confrontation speech. And like centrists, he opposed State and Armed Forces from the people, as if they were antagonists.

This anthology of texts under the tile “Centrism in Cuba: Another twist towards Capitalism” deals with it and much more. This is a collection of 19 news articles published in blogs or Cuban media that we believe paramount to describe how the centrist option is being intended to create a mindset in the people. We also try to unmask the “new” trick with which they pretend to cause confusion among revolutionary readers.

As ebook, “Centrism in Cuba: Another Twist towards Capitalism” is a book on the making. Thus, this is a first look to the subject that may increase the number of pages or being printed or better; serve as a source for an audiovisual work.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Diaz / CubaSi Translation Staff

The Third Way in Cuba: The Acrobat’s Drama

The Third Way approach emerged in England as a way to disguise and tone down the pillage of capitalism, accelerated after the collapse of Socialist projects in East Europe. It has not generated, as some gurus foretold, the necessary conditions so that poor people in the world can survive, produce, and consume. It has triggered a brutal worsening of living conditions, more poverty, insalubrity, and insecurity.

The representatives of the so-called Centrism in Cuba, who introduce themselves as a third way —an intermediate way between capitalism and socialism— try to show with a series of sophisms the ineffectiveness of the revolutionary path, as they deny the Revolution.

New words for old principles. The same formula was used to undermine the Revolution by the end of the 1950s and the early years of 1960s. It also occurred in the 1980s when a group of artists with emerging aesthetic proposals were used to promote the ideas of the third way. With the same purpose, international scholarships were used as well. Such scholarships had other purposes and tried to create confusion and division in complex times for Socialism in East Europe, especially targeting young artists and literary intellectuals.

The plot of the story

On May 14th, 2004 a group of U.S. officials, diplomats from allied countries, and CIA officials gathered at the house of a prominent U.S. official who worked at the U.S. Interest Section (USIS) in Havana, Francisco Saenz. I, writer and professor at the University, attended that meeting as Special Guest.

One hour earlier, the Cuban people had starred a demonstration in front of the USIS to protest against the hardening of the economic war on Cuba, as well as the threats of the U.S. president George W. Bush. Ten years later, the president of the same nation acknowledged the failure of such obsolete policy and tried to reach the same goal but using a different strategy. A logical move was to end the stick approach and thus, the Obama’s administration betted on projects like Genesis, Cuba Posible, etc.

In the U.S. home, Bush’s measures were celebrated; nonetheless, some spoke about the possibility of a change in the strategy to put an end to the Revolution in case Bush’s plans fail. The War against the historical leader was already lost. Other options had to be explored; for instance, the Chilean-like agreement or the Spanish-like transition.

Francisco Saenz spoke of a new way that men like me should start. He made reference to intellectuals, culture people, and scientists. Several names came up as well as the possibility to outline a way that most of the Cuban people would accept. The general consensus was that we must pave the way for a Cuba without Fidel and Raul Castro.

The “new way,” thirteen years after Bush’s measures to starve Cuba, the primitive language returns in the words of another president: Donald Trump.

Within the Eagle Sight

This was the first meeting of many. Kelly Keiderling, Head of Press and Culture at the USIS, began organizing with me social gatherings with artists not-openly committed to the counter-revolution. The “attraction” would be to discuss about Cuban reality.

Katrin Hansing, introduced as Kelly’s friend and partner at the Georgetown University, had the mission of summoning to the gatherings one renowned university professor. Today, this professor is a “constitution reformist”, a “promoter” of constitutional changes. Publishers of religious institutions like Espacio Laical and Vitral attended these meetings.

Those social gatherings did not meet their goals due to the poor participation of guests and the incriminating nature of the place, Kelly’s residence.

Afterwards, the idea was to create a Literary Agency approved by the Ministry of Culture. The goal was to have an independent organization open to all where writers and artists could “exchange views freely” and therefore, create the needed literary basis with future perspective.

Project Genesis

CIA Project Genesis is born in 2007 and its main target is the Cuban youth as well as the revolutionary sectors.

Genesis should have come to fruition in period of time of 10-15 years and came to light when the historical leaders of the Revolution were not alive. The new technologies of the information and communication, and the Internet would play a paramount role to promote contents and demonstrations.

A framework of leaders planted in economical, political, and social centers should have been created. It was interesting that Project Genesis must have given priority to those leaders of youth organizations such as UJC, or FEU for leadership grant.

We are talking about an organization “spread” in the universities, which should admit young students and professors linked to programs sponsored and financed by the enemy with artistic, academic, cultural, and social projects in the communities.

Genesis should have presented itself as a national option, born to defend our socialism, not to “update it” in order to lead the country through “modern” paths according to the most “notable” of the European and Latin American thought. A third way to plant confusion and chaos, aiming at destroying the unity of the country.

A small detail, this organization, had its schedule. It was composed of two committees: one executive and one consultative. The executive one was composed of Cubans while the consultative was composed of Americans. No decision could have been taken without the express approval of the consultative committee.

After the Complaint

On April 2011, as part of the public complaint known as Las Razones de Cuba, the monstrosity could not see the light. The social base composed of incredulous young people did not exist. It was hard for them to find young leaders and train new cadres, the most valuable young men in the country. These young men supported and support the Revolution.

They got back to work and tried to reorganize the job. Ted Henken carried out an inquiry in the Cuban blogosphere, identifying possible allies. He sought for any gap, and studied candidates.

Digital platforms with a centrist tendency emerged in the country by that time. Students, university professors, communication professionals operated the web. These people were linked to several courses financed by NGOs, programs and international scholarships, educational exchange programs, and other activities financed by private enterprises and mass media.

The former editors of Espacio Laical Roberto Veiga and Lenier Gonzalez funded the entity “Cuba Posible”. Few weeks after its foundation, Cuba Posible organized a great “academic” event in the U.S.

On May 26th, 2016 the Open Society Foundations hosted in its headquarters in New York the “Laboratorio de Ideas (Laboratory of Ideas)” Cuba Posible. The event held in New York, financed by Ford Foundations and Open Society, was about the “present challenges of Cuba.” The same Open Society of George Soros, the millionaire philanthropist involved in Color Revolutions and Soft Coups, the genocide behind Ukraine, Venezuela, etc…

The Empire new strategy created a media branch composed of platforms fostering a third way that may add leaders from the intellectual world as well as journalists and academicians. The goal was to attract a growing public by using captivating language and code.

They use popular tools in the marketing world as the storytelling in order to reach a better empathy with the audience.

They bet on moving the revolutionary ideology to the center after having failed with old formulas and witnessed how their best-elaborated plans have collapsed. They aimed at adding more people to the ideological, comfortable, and opportunistic ambivalence from an allegedly neutral approach to undermine the Revolution.

They promote the ideological lack of definition, the abandonment of principles, lack of commitment, and political inactivity. They boast to be nationalists and left-winged. They remain within the institutions, academies, cultural and scientific centers, in the mass media, but always against the Socialist state, the Communist Party and its anti-imperialist and revolutionary tradition.

But they have a big drama: they need a critical mass of people who may be far from the principles of the Revolution. And it did not happen. The vast majority of the Cuban people have opted for the socialist way along with the Communist Party of Cuba. And we are willing to change everything that must be changed, except for our souls and the sovereign soul of Cuba.

The Third Way, which is counterrevolutionary by its essence, has been the most powerful tool used by powers when they feel something is wrong. They see it in Cuba under this new Empire strategy as a B plan to undermine the Revolution from within. They tend to confuse and deceive the audience while walking a tightrope, where they go forward and backward, according to the U.S. instructions.

The Third Way, the Cuban centrism, was created in test tubes in the enemy subversion headquarters. Its leaders, disguised before the challenging task of finding new allies, were raised under the eagle shadow and its essence unmasked them.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Diaz / CubaSi Translation Staff

Washington: Near the Announcement of Politics Changing towards Cuba

Thus commented last Wednesday Andrés Oppenheimer journalist committed in body and soul to the United States,.

Born in Argentina he was trained and awarded in the U.S. Now he published an article on the announcement that Donald Trump will pronounce today regarding a changing in politics toward Havana.

The title: "The theater of Trump with Cuba."

He begins saying, the leader is right, Obama’s opening toward Cuba did not bring changes to its human and democratic rights.

He adds, but I’m afraid that the plan of partially reverting the current North American politics toward Cuba will only help to "make things worse."

Then came the detail that the partial reverting Of Obama’s opening to Cuba which Trump has planned to announce in Miami, will include two main aspects.

Banning of North American companies making business with corporations related to the Cuban Army and restrictions to the North American tourism to the island.

Trump won’t close the Embassy of Washington in Havana neither he will grant automatic asylum to those stepping on U.S. soil, says Oppenheimer.

His measures won’t inflict great damage either "to the Cuban dictatorship", but it will allow the régime to denounce them.

He later says, neither Obama’s opening in 2014, neither the current partial reverting of Trump in 2017, have been motivated by the desire of democratizing Cuba.

In both cases, he asserts, they were motivated by U.S. domestic issues.

He remembers that Obama was about the end of his term, without any outstanding victory in foreign policy.

The polls showed that even Cuban "exiles" from Miami said that the blockade had failed, reads Oppenheimer’s article.

On the following line he gives a devastating approach:

"In Trump’s case, almost everything he’s done demonstrates that democracy in Cuba, or anywhere in the world, he doesn’t care a bit."

He also disclosed that in 1998 he tried to make business with Cuba, and to endorse it he mentions a Newsweek article in 2016.

Being further more specific he reveals that the effort was carried out "with Trump’s knowledge", through a Consulting North American Firm.

In September 2015, he also wrote, when asked on Obama’s opening to Cuba, Trump told to The Daily Caller:

"I believe that it’s OK", although “we should have made a stronger agreement".

In March 2015, the multimillionaire president declared to the CNN that he would consider opening a hotel in Havana.

According to Andrés Oppenheimer, Trump worries about the democracy in Cuba because he is demand that by the Cuban-American senator Marco Rubio and the congress member from Miami Mario Díaz-Balart.

Then he finishes his article writing: The thing of Trump with Cuba is pure political theater for domestic consumption.

His partial measures won't achieve what prior North American sanctions to Cuba could not achieve in the last five decades.

Prelude not so optimistic hours before the announcement regarding a politics change toward Havana.

Instead of Pardon, Obama Gave Leonard Peltier a Death Sentence

Leonard Peltier, who was found guilty in 1975 of killing two FBI agents in a dubious trial, may be the most famous political prisoner in the U.S.

This year’s anniversary of the arrest of Leonard Peltier is not like any other that had passed as he marks his 41st year behind bars a few weeks after former President Barack Obama refused to grant him a pardon, which his lawyer and human rights groups said amounted to a death sentence for the 72-year-old Native American leader.

"I think it’s fair to say that if he doesn’t get commuted by President Obama, he’ll die in jail. He’s a very sick man," Peltier’s attorney Martin Garbus told Democracy Now! on Jan 18. just hours ahead of Obama’s decision.

"So, Obama’s not granting him clemency is like a sentence of death. Trump ain’t going to do it. And he’s very sick, and he’s not going to live past that time. I don’t want to be negative, but that’s the reality. He’s very sick, and he’s been in prison over 40 years, hard years, six years of solitary," he added.

RELATED: From Mumia to Peltier, US Political Prisoners Still Locked Up

Just a day earlier, Garbus had revealed, Pope Francis joined Amnesty International and other groups in putting pressure on Obama to free Peltier due to his poor health and lack of evidence against him.

"We are deeply saddened by the news that President Obama will not let Leonard go home," read a statement from Margaret Huang, executive director of Amnesty International USA last month. "The failure to act may have condemned him to die in prison."

Leonard Peltier has always maintained his innocence and has emphatically maintained that his continued persecution by the U.S. government is politically motivated.

Calls for clemency for the Indigenous leader intensified after Chelsea Manning, the former ex-U.S. soldier who leaked secret military documents, and Puerto Rican independence fighter Oscar Lopez Rivera were given commutations by Obama.

Even Amnesty International has taken up Peltier's cause, questioning the fairness of his trial and backing assertions that political considerations likely factored into his treatment by the U.S. justice system.

So why would U.S. authorities single out Peltier and seek his unjust imprisonment?

Peltier was a leading figure within the American Indian Movement during its peak in political activity in the 1970's. Active in defense of his people's interests and lands from a young age, Peltier rose quickly to occupy a prominent role within the movement.

In 1975, responding to a request by local indigenous people from the Pine Ridge Reservation, Peltier traveled to South Dakota. There he worked with the community helping provide security amidst political tensions and violence between rival groups on the reservation.

FBI officials, on a deliberate mission to weaken or destroy leftist organizations, believed that AIM activists were conspiring at Pine Ridge. “It was not an armed military camp hatching terrorist plans … It was a spiritual camp,” said Peltier.

On June 26, 1975, a massive shootout erupted, which included participants from AIM, the FBI, and paramilitaries hired by the tribal chairman who was opposed to AIM.

When the bullets stopped, two FBI agents and one Indigenous man by the name of Joseph Stuntz were dead.

Despite the participation of dozens of people, only AIM members Bob Robideau, Darrell Butler, and Leonard Peltier were brought up on charges related to the deaths of the FBI officials. Robideau and Butler were arrested and charged but ultimately acquitted.

Peltier, fearing that he would not receive a fair trial, fled to Canada. He would eventually be extradited back to the United States based on the testimony of Myrtle Poor Bear, who said she saw Peltier shoot the agents.

Poor Bear would eventually recant her statements. It is alleged she was not even present at Pine Ridge on the day in question.

Peltier's trial was held in North Dakota in 1977 and was presided over by Judge Paul Benson, an appointee of conservative President Richard Nixon.

Myrtle Poor Bear was not allowed to testify and submit to the jury that her previous statements were false. Other witnesses would later claim the FBI coerced them into testifying against Peltier. Key evidence that helped exonerate Robideau and Butler was not allowed to be introduced.

RELATED: 'Thank You Fidel': Puerto Rican Poet and Ex-Political Prisoner

The jury found Peltier guilty and he was sentenced to two consecutive life sentences. It would later be revealed that the prosecution hid thousands of documents related to the case, documents that could have helped prove Peltier's innocence.

Despite all this, Peltier was denied a retrial in 1986. The judge who presided over that trial, Gerald Heaney, even expressed concern about the administration of justice

He has also been consistently denied parole, most recently in 2009, due to his insistence that he is innocent.

Peltier is now 71-years-old and is not eligible for another parole hearing until 2024. This is why his supporters, who include many notable figures and celebrities, have called for U.S. authorities to release him on humanitarian grounds. Other have specifically called on President Obama to commute Peltier's sentence before the end of his term.

  • Published in World

Tehran ‘unmoved’ by US threats, will use weapons ‘only in self-defense’ – Iranian FM to Trump

Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has responded to US President Donald Trump’s Twitter accusations that Tehran was “playing with fire,” also taking to social media to say that Iran was “unmoved” by US threats and “will never initiate war.”

The foreign minister posted two videos on Twitter, with the tweets reading: “Iran unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people. We'll never initiate war, but we can only rely on our own means of defense.”

Iran unmoved by threats as we derive security from our people. We'll never initiate war, but we can only rely on our own means of defense.

He also challenged those who warn Iran, accusing them of hypocrisy.

@JZarif We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement.

“We will never use our weapons against anyone, except in self-defense. Let us see if any of those who complain can make the same statement,” Zarif wrote.

In the two videos posted on his Twitter account, Zarif is seen explaining Iran’s stance in a previous speech.

“You were not the subject of war, where your cities were showered with missiles carrying chemical warheads, and you didn’t have a single missile to retaliate, so that maybe Saddam Hussein would stop,” he said, referring to the Iran-Iraq war of the 1980s.

“We went to one country after another, begging – I insist, begging – for a single scud missile to defend our people. Now, you want us to get a few dollars, and to abandon defending our people,” he goes on to say, adding that Iran is “entitled to the rudimentary means of defense.”

On Monday, Fox News quoted US officials as saying that Iran had conducted medium-range ballistic missile tests. Iran confirmed that it had tested the missile, and that the launch was "in line" with its plans.

"We will not allow foreigners to interfere in our defense affairs," Defense Minister Hossein Dehghan told Tasnim news agency on Wednesday.

Zarif’s tweets came after the US President Trump attacked Tehran, saying that “Iran is playing with fire,” and warning the country’s officials that he would not be as “kind” as former President Barack Obama.

A historic deal brokered during Obama’s time in office stated that Iran would curb its nuclear potential significantly, but not completely, cutting the number of its centrifuges by two-thirds.

The deal also obliged Iran to cap its uranium enrichment program below the level necessary for bomb-grade material, and involved Tehran agreeing to reduce its enriched uranium stockpile from around 10,000kg to 300kg for 15 years. In exchange, the US lifted long-standing sanctions against Tehran.

The UN has only recently said that Tehran is honoring its part of the bargain.

  • Published in World

Cuba Finds Obama's Migration Decision Positive

Cuba considers a positive step forward in improving relations with the USA an agreement announced yesterday by President Barack Obama to secure regular, safe and orderly migration between the two countries.

Obama's declaration does away with the so-called 'wet foot, dry foot' policy that guaranteed any Cuban arriving in US territory, no matter how, to becoming a legal resident.

The executive order states that Cubans trying to get illegally into the USA and does not qualify for human aid will be subject to be returned according to the US laws.

By giving this step -the statement stresses- We are treating Cuban immigrants in the same manner that We deal with immigrants from other countries.

The document adds that the Cuban Government has agreed to accept the return of Cuban nationals (in US soil) who has been ordered to return, just like it has accepted to receive immigrants intercepted at sea.

In a statement released last night the Cuban Government highlights that this agreement does away with the policy commonly known as 'wet foot, dry foot' and the parole admission program for Cuban health professionals that Washington applied in third nations to encourage them to illegally leave for the USA.

The agreement was reached after a year of negotiations based on mutual respect and the political will to strengthen bilateral relations and pave the ground for new understandings on diverse issues of common interest, the Cuban statement points out.

It should contribute -it adds- to normalizing migration relations which have been shadowed by aggressive policies of successive US administrations that encouraged violence, irregular migration and human trafficking, causing the death of many innocent people.

The 'wet foot, dry foot' policy was until now an encouragement to irregular migration, immigrant trafficking and irregular entries to the USA from third countries.

By automatically receiving them, the US authorities were granting them a preferential and unique treatment no citizen from other countries get, therefore it was also an incitement to illegal exits.

  • Published in Now

Noam Chomsky Asks Obama To Pardon 11Mn Undocumented Migrants

The professor asked Obama to make a historic gesture in solidarity with migrants before he leaves office.

Retired MIT linguistics professor Noam Chomsky urged U.S. President Barack Obama to issue a general pardon to the millions of undocumented immigrants that are facing immediate deportation under Donald Trump’s presidency.

“President Obama, to his credit, has issued personal pardons in deserving cases, but he should go far beyond,” Chomsky stated in a video posted Friday by the Immigrant Worker Center Collaborative.

“He should proceed to what is, in fact, an urgent necessity, to grant a general pardon to 11 million people who are living and working (in the United States), productive citizens … threatened with deportation by the incoming administration,” Chomsky insisted, as Trump will come into office next month, with the electoral promise of deporting 2 to 3 million people.

“It would be a horrible humanitarian tragedy, a moral outrage that can be reverted by a general pardon, and we should join to urge (Obama) to carry out this necessary step without delay.”

As part of his anti-immigration rhetoric, Trump has also expressed plans to end birthright citizenship, meaning the children of undocumented immigrants would also be considered undocumented, even if they have lived their entire lives in the U.S. He is also expected to attack Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals program, aimed at protecting thousands of people who arrived in the country as children.

Trump has slammed Obama for being soft on immigration, despite the fact that Obama's presidency set records for deportations, with some 2.5 million people deported under such immigration enforcement policies as Secure Communities and the Priority Enforcement Program.

While the details of Trump’s proposed immigration policy remain foggy, Latinos and other immigrants are already fearful — for good reason — of the possibility of impending deportation.

  • Published in Specials
Subscribe to this RSS feed