63 years since the Cold War murdered Ethel & Julius Rosenberg

"Save the Rosenbergs" rally in France

Brendan Campisi

Today it will have been sixty-three years since Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were executed after being convicted of spying for the Soviet Union. While I believe that the actions the Rosenbergs were accused of -- helping the USSR break the US monopoly on nuclear weapons -- were an act of service to humanity, the details of what they did and did not do are, in the final analysis, not that important.

Dangerous developments for the people of Ukraine

Members of the Communist Party of Ukraine rally
to defend a statue of Lenin from ultra-right forces

Joint Statement of Communist and Workers' Parties, circulated by the Communist Parties of Germany and Greece. 

The recent dramatic developments in Ukraine do not constitute the "victory of democracy" by the alleged "revolutionaries", as it is described by the mass media of the USA and the EU, but is a dangerous development, above all for the people of Ukraine themselves.

Reactionary political forces, ideological descendants of the Nazis, have risen to the political "surface" with the assistance of the EU and the USA. These are forces which apart from destroying the offices of their opponents, are planning political persecutions, and the banning of parties, above all against the communists, and even racist legislation at the expense of the Russian‑speaking population, like what has been in force for the last 20 years in the countries of the "European" Baltic, with the blatant political support of the EU.

Home of the brave, land of the free?

With only 5% of the world's population, the US has 25% of the world's prison population as this info-graphic illustrates.

Fact-check: Obama's war speech on Syria

Obama:

My fellow Americans, for nearly seven decades the United States has been the anchor of global security. This has meant doing more than forging international agreements. It has meant enforcing them. The burdens of leadership are often heavy, but the world's a better place because we have borne them. 

Source

Reality:

Read more:

From Wounded Knee to Libya, a century of US military operations.

You be the judge.

Korean Peninsula - who is being 'bellicose' and 'provocative'?

Winner of the 26th Mangyongdae Prize Marathon women's race in DPRK

From The Guardian, weekly of the Communist Party of Australia, April 10, 2013

"Bellicose" and "provocative" - those are the words used over and over by the capitalist media to describe the actions the Democratic People's Republic of Korea and statements by its leadership in recent times. Scarcely any context is given to explain developments in the strained relationship between the DPRK, its South Korean neighbour and the USA. What little that is provided amounts to speculation about what might be in the mind of the new leader of the country, Kim Jong‑un. "Maybe the young leader is trying to assert his authority in the eyes of the military." "Maybe he wants to distract the population from the economic problems of the DPRK," and so on, and so forth without any reference to facts.

     The corporate media can always be relied on to stoke the fires of hatred. Items carrying unconvincing claims of camps containing hundreds of thousands of starved and tortured political prisoners are being published again. Reports about parents eating their children in a supposedly ongoing famine have resurfaced. The notion that Communists eat babies was first trotted out at the time of the Russian Revolution and has never completely been retired. And, of course, the country is "isolated", "paranoid" and "Stalinist" in the eyes of an increasing tabloid‑style corporate media.

     Imperialism's media/industrial complex has no interest in informing the public to allow it to make considered judgements. It is partisan; its objective is to tarnish any alternative to capitalism in the eyes of exploited people and to justify the crushing of any successful attempt to break free of imperialism's grip. Invasions have been planned and tried but, short of military attack, socialist countries have always been subject to punishing trade and diplomatic restrictions. In some cases, such as Cuba and the DPRK, they have been extreme and deadly. The reaction to this aggression against these usually small states is then provided as evidence of "isolation" and "paranoia".

     The history of the DPRK is the classic example of a US‑led campaign to stand truth on its head. Despite the presence of tens of thousands of US troops on its borders with terrifying military equipment including nuclear weapons, despite regular, provocative joint military exercises with its South Korean client state, despite the vivid memory of the carpet bombing, napalming and germ warfare against the DPRK during the war of 1950-1953 and the loss of five million lives, the leadership of the country has consistently called for:

* A peace treaty to formally end the war
* Reunification of the country divided by the US in 1945
* An end to the US occupation of the south and the annual, month‑long joint military exercises
* Bilateral talks to ease tensions between the US and the DPRK

     These calls for peace have been persistently rejected. Fraught six‑party talks aimed at removing the DPRK's nuclear deterrent were imposed instead. The US/South Korean "war games" have become more and more threatening since the passing of late leader Kim Jong‑il.

     The change of posture also coincides with US President Obama's announcement of a military "pivot" towards Asia with its ultimate military objective of China. The latest manoeuvres included scenarios for the "pre‑emptive" invasion of the DPRK. Nuclear weapons capable B‑52s and the B‑2 stealth bombers have dropped inert bombs less than 30 kilometres away from the North/South border in mock bombing runs on the DPRK.

     This is the context of the DPRK's decision to deploy missiles, mobilise its troops, call for foreign diplomats to leave the country for their own safety and to cut communications with the South Korean government of President Park Geun‑hye, who just so happens to be daughter of General Park Chung‑hee, the late, ruthless dictator of South Korea. The defiant statements emanating from Pyongyang are being portrayed by many as the utterly unprovoked taunts of a "rogue" regime.

     It is worthwhile asking what the response would be if the situation were reversed - if a socialist country moved state of the art military equipment close to the borders of the US. The last time that happened - during the Cuban missile crisis - the US moved the planet as close to a nuclear winter as it has ever come. So, when the government of the DPRK issues strongly worded statements in response to the mobilisation of masses of troops and huge quantities of war‑fighting materiel right up to its border, it's worthwhile asking, who is really being "bellicose" and "provocative"? Who is really engaging in "sabre rattling"?

Stay classy, Republicans!

Getty images

THE BEST AND MOST INTELLIGENT

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

THE BEST AND MOST INTELLIGENT


Yesterday, because of a lack of time and space, I did not write one word about Barack Obama’s speech on the Libyan war that he gave on Monday, March 28. I had a copy of the official version that the US administration had provided to the press. I underlined some of his statements. I went through it again and concluded that it was not worth wasting too much paper on.

I recalled what Carter had told me about the US forestry industry when he visited Cuba in 2002, since he owns a family-run tree farm in Georgia. During his recent visit I asked him about his farm and once again he explained how he plants 3 pine trees per every 2 meters, equaling 1,700 trees per hectare that are harvested 25 years later.

Many years ago, I read in a Sunday issue of The New York Times that this publication used the equivalent of 40 hectares of forest to produce its printed edition. So, this explains my concern about saving paper.

Of course, Obama is an expert articulator of words and phrases. He could make a living out of writing children’s short stories. I am familiar with his style because, long before he took office, I read and underlined his book entitled Dreams from My Father, which was the first thing I read of his. I did so with respect and recognized that the author knew how to select the precise words and correct phrases to win over the readers’ sympathies.

I confess that I did not like the way he used suspense, concealing his political ideas until the end. I made a special effort not to jump to the last chapter to read his opinions on various issues that, in my opinion, were crucial at this stage of human history. I was sure that the severe economic crisis, the colossal military expenditures, and the young blood that was shed during the times of his republican predecessor would help him defeat his electoral adversary, despite the enormous racial prejudices of US society. He was aware about the risk of being physically eliminated.

For obvious reasons of traditional politicking, prior to the elections, he went after the votes of the Miami-based anti-Cuban factions, most of them led by reactionary people who had supported Batista. These people turned the United States into a banana republic, where electoral fraud decided no less than Bush W’s electoral victory in 2000, throwing a future Nobel laureate into the garbage: Al Gore, vice-president under Clinton and a presidential candidate.

A basic sense of justice would have led President Obama to rectify the outcome of the infamous trial that led to the inhumane, cruel and particularly unfair imprisonment of five Cuban patriots.

His Union Addresses; his speeches in Brazil, Chile and El Salvador; and his address on NATO´s war on Libya forced me to underline the aforementioned speech more than his own autobiography.

What are the worst parts of his statement and how can one explain the approximately 2,500 words in the official version?

From a domestic standpoint, the speech’s complete lack of realism places its happy author in the hands of his worst adversaries, those who want to humiliate him and take revenge for his November 2008 electoral victory. The beating they gave him in late 2010 is still not enough for them.

From an external standpoint, the world gained more awareness of what the UN Security Council, NATO and Yankee Imperialism really represents to many nations.

To be as brief as I have promised, I’ll tell you that Obama began his speech by saying that he has played his role in “stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe.”

He immediately added that: “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.”

This is something that —as our readers know— Cubans, Latin Americans, Vietnamese and many others, can bear witness to.

After this solemn declaration of faith, Obama invested a lot of time to speaking about Qaddafi, about his horrors and the reasons for which the United States and their closest allies: “—United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey— all of whom have fought by our sides for decades […] have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.”

Further on he added: “…NATO, has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone.”

He confirmed the objectives of this decision “Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation —to our military and to American taxpayers— will be reduced significantly.”

“So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.”

He then went back to obsessing on Qaddafi and to the contradictions that assail his mind: “Qaddafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous.”

“It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”

“The task that I assigned our forces —to protect the Libyan people […] — carries with it a UN mandate and international support.”

He returned to his obsessions over and over again: “If we tried to overthrow Qaddafi by force, our coalition would splinter. We would […] have to put US troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air.”

“…we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars.”

A few days after the NATO bombings began, a few reports started to appear about a US fighter-bomber that had been shot down. A source later confirmed the reports. Upon seeing a falling parachutist, some of the country folk did what people traditionally do in Latin America: they went to go see, and if someone needed it, they would provide help. No one can know what they were thinking. They were most definitely Muslims working the earth who would not be in favor of the bombings. A helicopter, which suddenly arrived on the scene to rescue the pilot, opened fire against the rural farmers, seriously injuring one of them. It was a miracle that they didn’t kill them all. As the world knows, Arabs are traditionally hospitable towards their enemies, they invite them to stay in their own houses and turn their back to not see which way they take. Even a coward or a traitor could never represent the spirit of a social class.

The strange theory, that he included in his speech, could only occur to Obama, as shown in the following passage:

“There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. [...] And in these circumstances, we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.”

“In such cases, we should not be afraid to act -– but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action.”

“That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States –- in a region that has such a difficult history with our country –- this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, “We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.”

“This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.”

“Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes.”

Everyone knows that Mubarak was an ally of the U.S., and when Obama visited the University of Cairo, in June 2009, he could not ignore the tens of billions of dollars stolen by him in Egypt.

He continued with the emotional story:

“…we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith -- those ideals -- that are the true measure of American leadership.”

“…our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star -- the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.”

“And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.”

The spectacular story reminded me of the Tea Party, Senator Bob Menendez and the illustrious Ileana Ros, the fierce wolf that defied the law to keep the Cuban boy Elian Gonzalez kidnapped. She is now nothing less than Head of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the House of Representatives of the United States.

Gaddafi never tires of repeating that Al-Qaeda is making the war on him and sends fighters against the government of Libya, because he supported Bush's war on terror.

That organization once had excellent relations with the American intelligence services in the fight against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and has plenty of experience on the working methods of the CIA.

What if the allegations of Gaddafi were true? How would Obama explain to the American people that part of those ground combat weapons fell into the hands of the men of Bin Laden?

Would it not have been better and and more intelligent to have struggled to promote peace and not war in Libya?


Fidel Castro Ruz
March 31, 2011
7:58 p.m.

Fidel: Between emigration and crime

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

BETWEEN EMIGRATION AND CRIME


Latin Americans are not born-criminals nor did they invent drugs.

The Aztecs, Maya and other pre-Columbian human groups in Mexico and Central America, for example, were excellent farmers and didn’t even know about growing coca.

The Quechua and Aymara were capable of producing nutritious foods on perfect terraces that followed the mountain level curves. On the high plateaux that often exceeded three or four thousand metres in altitude, they grew quinua, a cereal rich in protein, and potatoes.

They knew about and also grew the coca plant whose leaves they chewed from time immemorial in order to lessen the ravages of high altitudes. This is an ancient custom that the peoples practiced along with products such as coffee, tobacco, liquor and others.

Coca originated on the steep slopes of the Amazonian Andes. The settlers there knew about it from times that pre-dated the Inca Empire whose territory, at the height of its splendour, stretched over the area covered today by southern Colombia, all of Ecuador, Peru, Bolivia, eastern Chile and north-eastern Argentina; it totalled about two million square kilometres.

THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THE “PARTNERSHIP OF EQUALS”

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

THE REAL INTENTIONS OF THE “PARTNERSHIP OF EQUALS”

Yesterday was a long day. I was paying attention to the ups and downs of Obama in Chile since noon, as I had done the day before with his adventures in the city of Rio de Janeiro. That city, in a brilliant challenge, had defeated Chicago in its aspirations to be the home of the 2016 Olympic Games when the new president of the United States and Nobel Peace Prize laureate was looking like a rival of Martin Luther King.

Nobody knew when he would arrive to Santiago de Chile and what a president of the United States would do there when one of his predecessors had committed the painful crime of promoting the overthrow and physical death of their heroic president, horrible tortures and the murders of thousands of Chileans.

I for one was trying to follow the news that was coming in about the tragedy in Japan and the brutal war unleashed against Libya while the illustrious visitor was proclaiming the “Partnership of Equals” in the region of the world where wealth is distributed in the worst way.

Among so many things, I lost track a bit and saw nothing of the lavish banquet for hundreds of people being served the delicacies nature offered from the sea. The banquet had been served in a Tokyo restaurant , the city where one can pay up to 300,000 dollars for a fresh blue-fin tuna, they had collected up to 10 million dollars.

That was too much work for a young man of my age. I wrote a brief Reflection and then went to bed for a long sleep.

This morning I was refreshed. My friend wouldn’t be arriving to El Salvador until after mid-day. I requested the cable dispatches, Internet articles and other recently arrived material.

I saw in the first place that, because of my reflections, the cables had given importance to what I had said about my position as First Party Secretary and I shall explain as briefly as possible. Concentrating on Barack Obama’s “Partnership of Equals” , a matter of so much historical importance – I say that seriously – I didn’t even remember that next month the Party Congress would be taking place.

My position on the subject was basically logical. Once I understood the seriousness of my state of health, I did what I thought, in my opinion, wasn’t necessary when I had that painful accident in Santa Clara; after the fall, treatment was tough, but my life was not in danger.

On the other hand, when I wrote the Proclamation on the 31st of July it was clear to me that the state of my health was extremely critical.

I immediately set aside all my public duties, adding to the proclamation some instructions to provide security and tranquility for the population.

It wasn’t necessary to specifically step down from each one of my duties.

For me, my most important duty was that of First Party Secretary. Because of ideology and on principle, in a revolutionary stage, that political position carries the highest authority. The other position I held was that of President of the Council of State and Government, elected by the National Assembly. Both posts had replacements, and not by virtue of some family connection, something I have never considered to be the source of right, but due to experience and merit.

The rank of Commander in Chief had been granted me by the struggle itself, a matter of chance more than because of any personal merit. The Revolution itself, in a subsequent stage, correctly designated headship of all armed institutions to the president, a function that in my opinion, ought to fall to the First Party Secretary. I consider that that’s how a country such as Cuba should be, having had to face an obstacle as considerable as the empire created by the United States.

Almost 14 years went by since the previous Party Congress; it coincided with the disappearance of the USSR, the socialist bloc, the Special Period and my own illness.

When gradually and partially my health was recovered, the idea didn’t even cross my mind about the need to proceed formally in order to expressly resign from any position. At that time, I accepted the honour of being elected as Deputy to the National Assembly, something that did not demand my physical presence and with which I might share my ideas.

Since I have more time than ever now to observe, to inform myself and to lay out certain points of view, I shall modestly fulfil my duty to fight for the ideas I have defended throughout my modest life.

I beg readers to forgive the time I have spent in this explanation that above-mentioned circumstances have forced me to undertake.

The most important matter, which I cannot forget, is that rare partnership between millionaires and starving people as proposed by the illustrious President of the United States.

Those who are well-informed, those who know for example, the history of this hemisphere, its battles, or even the history of the Cuban people defending their Revolution against the empire that, as Obama himself acknowledges, “now lasted for longer than I’ve been alive”, will surely be amazed by his proposal.

It is well-known that the current president is a good wordsmith, circumstances that, together with the economical crisis, growing unemployment, losses of homes, and deaths of American soldiers in the stupid wars of Bush, helped him to obtain his victory.

After observing him well, I wouldn’t be surprised that he was the author of the ridiculous name with which the massacre in Libya was baptized – “Odyssey Dawn” – that unsettled the dust of the mortal remains of Homer and those who contributed to the forging of the legend in the famous Greek poems, even though I admit, perhaps, the name was created by the military chiefs who are managing the thousands of nuclear weapons with which a mere command from the Nobel Peace Prize laureate can determine the end of our species.

His speech to whites, blacks, native peoples, mestizos and non-mestizos, religious or non-religious peoples of the Americas delivered in the Palacio de la Moneda Cultural Centre was distributed in a true copy by United States embassies everywhere, and it was translated and spread by Chile TV, CNN, and other broadcasting stations in other languages as I would imagine.

It was in the style of the speech he gave in the first year of his term in Cairo, the capital of his friend and ally Hosni Mubarak, whose tens of billions of dollars taken from the people were supposedly known to a president of the United States.

“…Chile shows that we need not be divided by race […] or ethnic conflict”, he assures us, and thus the American problem was erased from the map.

He obsessively insists almost immediately that “…our marvelous surroundings today, just steps from where Chile lost its democracy decades ago, …” Everything other than saying coup d’état, the murder of the honourable General Schneider, or the glorious name of Salvador Allende, as if the government of the United States had absolutely nothing to do with it.

The great poet Pablo Neruda, whose death was prompted by the treacherous coup, was quoted more than once, in this case to affirm our beautifully poetic “guiding stars” which are “struggle” and “hope”. Has Obama forgotten that Neruda was a Communist, a friend of the Cuban Revolution, a great admirer of Simon Bolivar who is reborn every hundred years, and inspiration for the Heroic Guerrilla Ernesto Guevara?

I was admiring Barack Obama’s profound knowledge of history almost from the very beginning of his message. Some irresponsible advisor forgot to explain to him that Neruda was a member of the Chilean Communist Party. After a few other insignificant paragraphs, he recognizes that “Now, I know I’m not the first president from the United States to pledge a new spirit of partnership with our Latin American neighbors. Words are easy, and I know that there have been times where perhaps the United States took this region for granted.”

“…Latin America is not the old stereotype of a region - in perpetual conflict or trapped in endless cycles of poverty.”

“In Colombia, great sacrifices by citizens and security forces have restored a level of security not seen in decades.” Over there, there was never any drug trafficking, paramilitary or secret cemeteries.

In his speech, the working class does not exist, nor do landless peasants, or the illiterate, or infant and maternal mortality, people becoming blind, or victims of parasites such as Chaga or bacterial diseases such as cholera.

“From Guadalajara to Santiago to Sao Paolo, a new MIDDLE CLASS is demanding more of themselves and more of their governments”, he states.

“When a coup in Honduras threatened democratic progress, the nations of the hemisphere unanimously invoked the Inter-American Democratic Charter, helping to lay the foundation for the return to the rule of law.”

The real reason for Obama’s marvellous speech is explained in inarguable fashion in the middle of his message and in his own words: “Latin America is only going to become more important to the United States, especially to our economy […] We buy more of your products, more of your goods than any other country, and we invest more in this region than any other country. […] we export more than three times as much to Latin America as we do to China. Our exports to this region -- which are growing faster than our exports to the rest of the world -- …”. One can perhaps assume from this that “when Latin America is more prosperous, the United States is more prosperous.”

Further on, he dedicates insipid words to real facts:

“But if we’re honest, we’ll also admit that […] progress in the Americas has not come fast enough. Not for the millions who endure the injustice of extreme poverty. Not for the children in shantytowns and the favelas who just want the same chance as everybody else.”

“…political and economic power that is too often concentrated in the hands of the few, instead of serving the many”, he said verbatim.

“...we are not the first generation to face these challenges. Fifty years ago this month, President John F. Kennedy proposed an ambitious Alliance for Progress.”

“President Kennedy’s challenge endures – ‘to build a hemisphere where all people can hope for a sustainable, suitable standard of living, and all can live out their lives in dignity and in freedom.”

It is incredible that he now comes up with such an awkward story, an insult to human intelligence.

He has nothing left other than to mention, among the great calamities, a problem that originates in the colossal US market of lethal weapons: “Criminal gangs and narco-traffickers are not only a threat to the security of our citizens. They’re a threat to development, because they scare away investment that economies need to prosper. And they are a direct threat to democracy, because they fuel the corruption that rots institutions from within.”

Further on he reluctantly adds: “But we’ll never break the grip of the cartels and the gangs unless we also address the social and economic forces that fuel criminality. We need to reach at-risk youth before they turn to drugs and crime.”

“...as President I’ve made it clear that the United States shares and accepts our share of responsibility for drug violence. After all, the demand for drugs, including in the United States, drives this crisis. And that’s why we’ve developed a new drug control strategy that focused on reducing the demand for drugs through education and prevention and treatment.”

What he doesn’t say is that in Honduras 76 per every 100,000 inhabitants are dying as a result of violence, 19 times higher than in Cuba where practically, despite proximity to the United States, that problem hardly exists.

After a bunch of similar bits of foolishness, about weapons headed for Mexico that are being seized, a Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Inter-American Development bank, with which he says they are increasing the Microfinance Growth Fund for the Americas and promises to create new “Pathways to Prosperity” and other highfalutin terms that he pronounces in English and Spanish, he returns to his outlandish promises of hemispheric unity and he tries to impress his audience with the dangers of climatic changes.

Obama adds: “And if anybody doubts the urgency of climate change, they look -- they should look no further than the Americas -- from the stronger storms in the Caribbean, to glacier melt in the Andes, to the loss of forests and farmland across the region.” Without the guts to acknowledge that his country is the one most responsible for that tragedy.

He explains that he is proud to announce that “…the United States will work with partners in this region, including the private sector, to increase the number of U.S. students studying in Latin America to 100,000, and the number of Latin America students studying in the United States to 100,000.” We already know how much it costs to study medicine or any other profession in that country, and the shameless brain drain being practiced in the United States.

All his empty words ends with praise for the OAS that Roa described as the Ministry of Yankee Colonies when our Homeland unforgettably made an accusation in the United Nations, informing that the government of the United States had attacked our territory on April 15th of 1961 with B-26s painted with Cuban flags; a shameless event that in 23 days will be 50 years old.

Thus he believed that everything was completely ready to proclaim the right to subvert law and order in our country.

He openly confesses that they are “allowing Americans to send remittances that bring some economic hope for people across Cuba, as well as more independence from Cuban authorities.”

“…we’ll continue to seek ways to increase the independence of the Cuban people, who I believe are entitled to the same freedom and liberty as everyone else in this hemisphere.”

Later he recognizes that the blockade is damaging Cuba, depriving the economy of resources. Why does he not recognize the intentions of Eisenhower, and the declared United States aim when he applied it was bringing the Cuban people to their knees by hunger?

Why is it still in place? How many billions of dollars does the compensation the US must pay our country come to? Why are they keeping the 5 Cuban anti-terrorist heroes imprisoned? Why aren’t they applying the Adjustment Law to all Latin Americans instead of allowing thousands of them to die or get injured on the border imposed on that country after having stolen more than half of its territory?

I ask the President of the United States to pardon my frankness.

I harbour no hard feelings against him or his people.

I fulfill the duty of laying out all that I think about his “Partnership of Equals”.

The United States will get nothing from creating and stimulating the mercenary profession. I can assure him that the best and most well-educated young people in our country, graduates from the University of Informatics Sciences, know much more about the Internet and computer science than the Nobel laureate and President of the United States.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 22, 2011
9:17 p.m.

MY SHOES ARE TOO TIGHT

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

MY SHOES ARE TOO TIGHT

While the damaged reactors spew radioactive smoke over Japan and monstrous-looking planes and nuclear submarines launch deadly charges tele-directed onto Libya, a North African Third World country with barely six million inhabitants, Barack Obama was spinning a tale for the Chileans that sounded like one I used to hear when I was 4 years old: “My shoes are too tight, my socks are too warm; and I carry in my heart the little kiss you gave me”.

Some of his audience was taken aback in that Cultural Centre in Santiago de Chile.

When the president looked anxiously over his audience after mentioning perfidious Cuba, expecting an explosion of applause, there was icy silence. Behind him, oh, yes! felicitous coincidence! among all the other Latin American flags, there precisely was Cuba’s.

If he were to turn for a second, over his right shoulder he would have seen, like a shadow, the symbol of the Revolution on the rebel Island that his mighty country wanted to destroy, but could not.

Anybody would be, without a doubt, extraordinarily optimistic if they were expecting the peoples of Our America to applaud the 50th anniversary of the mercenary Bay of Pigs invasion, 50 years of cruel economic blockade of a sister country, 50 years of threats and terrorist attacks that cost thousands of lives, 50 years of plans to assassinate the leaders of the historic process.

I heard myself being mentioned in his words.

In truth, I gave my services to the Revolution for a long time, but I never eluded risks nor violated constitutional, ideological or ethical principles; I regret not having better health so that I could carry on serving the Revolution.

I resigned, without hesitation, all my state and political positions, including that of First Secretary of the Party, when I became ill and I never tried to exercise them after the Proclamation of July 31, 2006, even when I partially recovered my health more than a year later, although everyone continued to affectionately address me in that manner.

But I am and shall continue to be as I promised: a soldier of ideas, as long as I can think or breathe.

When they asked Obama about the coup against heroic President Salvador Allende, promoted as many others by the United States, and about the mysterious death of Eduardo Frei Montalva, murdered by agents of DINA, a creation of the American government, he lost his composure and began to stammer.

The commentary on Chilean television at the end of his speech was, without a doubt, accurate when it stated that Obama had nothing to offer the Hemisphere.

As for me, I don’t want to give the impression that I felt any hatred for his person, much less for the people of the United States; I acknowledge the contributions many of its sons and daughters have made to culture and science.

Obama now has before him a trip to El Salvador tomorrow, on Tuesday. There he is going to have to be quite inventive because, in that sister nation in Central America, the weapons and training received from the governments of his country spilt much blood.



I wish him bon voyage and a bit more good sense.


Fidel Castro Ruz
March 21, 2011
9:32 p.m.

PARTNERSHIP OF EQUALS

Reflections by Comrade Fidel

PARTNERSHIP OF EQUALS

Saturday evening, the 19th, after a sumptuous banquet, NATO leaders ordered the attack on Libya.

Of course, nothing could occur without the United States claiming its irrefutable role as supreme leader. From its command post of that institution in Europe, a senior official declared that “Odyssey Dawn” was about to begin.

World public opinion was deeply touched by the tragedy in Japan. The number of victims of the earthquake, the tsunami and the nuclear accident has kept on growing. By now there are thousands of dead, missing and radiation contaminated. Resistance to the use of nuclear energy will also grow considerably.

The world is suffering, at the same time, the consequences of climatic changes; shortages and prices of foods, military spending and the squandering of natural and human resources are increasing. War was the timeliest event that could happen at this time.

Obama’s trip through Latin America moved into the background, people were hardly paying any attention to it. In Brazil, the contradictory interests between the United States and this sister nation have become evident.

We cannot forget that Rio de Janeiro competed with Chicago to host the 2016 Olympic Games.

Obama wanted to win over the South American giant. He spoke of the “extraordinary rise of Brazil” that has impressed the international scene and he praised its economy as one of the economies with the fastest growth rate in the world, but he showed not even the least commitment in supporting Brazil as a permanent member of the privileged Security Council.

The Brazilian president did not hesitate in expressing her disagreement with the protectionist measures the US is applying on Brazil with the tariffs and subsidies that have constituted a mighty obstacle for the economy of that country.

Argentine writer Atilio Boron states that “ […] what interests [Obama] most as administrator of the empire is advancing control of Amazonia. The main requisite of this plan is to slow down, since it is something he cannot stop, the growing political and economic coordination and integration that is happening in the region: this had been very important in sinking ALCA in 2005 and frustrating the secessionist conspiracy and coups in Bolivia in 2008 and Ecuador in 2010. He also has to try to sow the seeds of discord between the most radical governments in the region (Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia and Ecuador) and the “progressive” governments, mainly Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay…”

“For the boldest US strategists, the Amazon river basin, just as the Antarctic, is a free-access area where national sovereignties are not recognized...”

Tomorrow Obama moves over to Chile. His arrival is preceded by an interview he gave to the newspaper El Mercurio that was printed today, on Sunday, in which he confesses that the “Debate in the Americas”, as he calls it, is based on a “partnership of equals” with Latin America that practically leaves us breathless as we recall the Alliance for Progress that preceded the mercenary Bay of Pigs expedition.

Obama literally confesses that the US vision for the hemisphere […] is based on the concept of a partnership of equals that he has pursued ever since becoming President of the United States.

Obama stated that he shall also focus on specific areas where they can work together, such as economic growth, energy, security and human rights’…

That vision, he emphasized, has the aim of ‘improving common security, expanding economic opportunities, ensuring a clean energy future and supporting the democratic values we share’.

…promoting a safe, stable and prosperous Hemisphere where the United States and their partners share responsibilities on key regional and global issues...

As we can see, everything is marvellously beautiful, worthy of being buried just like Reagan’s secrets, to be published within 200 years.

The problem is, as informed by the DPA Agency, according to a survey carried out by the newspaper La Tercera, “…in 2006, 43 percent of the Chilean population was rejecting nuclear plants”.

“Two years later the rejection rate rose to 52 percent and in 2010 is reached 74 percent.” Today, after what happened in Japan it has reached “...86 percent of Chileans...”

We only have to ask Obama one question. Taking into account that one of his illustrious predecessors, Richard Nixon promoted the coup and the heroic death of Salvador Allende, the torture and murder of thousands of persons, would Mr. Obama be asking forgiveness of the Chilean people?



Fidel Castro Ruz
March 20, 2011
8:14 p.m.

MLK was a working-class hero

From People's World

"I AM A MAN," the signs proclaimed in large, bold letters. They were held high, proudly and defiantly, by African-American men marching through the streets of Memphis, Tennessee, in the spring of 1968 .

The marchers were striking union members, sanitation workers demanding that the city of Memphis formally recognize their union and thus grant them a voice in determining their wages, hours and working conditions .

Hundreds of supporters joined their daily marches, most notably Martin Luther King Jr. He had been with the 1,300 strikers from the very beginning of their bitter struggle. He had come to Memphis to support them despite threats that he might be killed if he did The struggles of workers for union rights often are considered to be of no great importance. Dr. King knew better. He knew that the right to unionization is one of the most important of civil rights. Virtually his last act was in support of that right, for he was killed by an assassin's bullet on April 4, 1968 as he was preparing to lead strikers in yet another demonstration .

There are, of course, many reasons for honoring him on Martin Luther King Jr. Day Jan. 18. But we shouldn't forget that one of the most important reasons, one that's often overlooked, is Dr. King's championing of the cause of the Memphis strikers and others who sought union recognition .

His assassination brought tremendous public pressure to bear in behalf of the strikers in Memphis. President Lyndon Johnson sent in federal troops to protect them and assigned the Under Secretary of Labor to mediate the dispute. Within two weeks, an agreement was reached that granted strikers the union rights they had demanded .

For the first time, the workers' own representatives could sit across the table from their bosses and negotiate and air their grievances and demands for remedies. They got their first paid holidays and vacations, pensions and health care benefits. They got the right to overtime pay and raises of 38 percent in wages that had been so low ¬ about $1.70 an hour ¬ that 40 percent of the workers had qualified for welfare payments .

They got agreement that promotions would be made strictly on the basis of seniority, without regard to race, assuring the promotion of African Americans to supervisory positions for the first time. The strikers, in fact, got just about everything they had sought during the 65-day walkout .

William Lucy, secretary-treasurer of the strikers' union, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, saw Dr. King ³bring tears to the eyes of strikers and their families just by walking into a meeting ... the surge of confidence he inspired in the movement in Memphis." The strikers' victory in Memphis led quickly to union recognition victories by black and white public employees throughout the South and elsewhere. They had passed a major test of union endurance against very heavy odds, prompting a great upsurge of union organizing and militancy among government workers.

As Lucy said, it was "a movement for dignity, for equity, and for access to power and responsibility for all Americans." Anyone doubting that the labor and civil rights movements share those goals need only heed the words of Martin Luther King Jr.: "Our needs are identical with labor's needs: Decent wages, fair working conditions, liveable housing, old-age security, health and welfare measures, conditions in which families can grow, have education for their children, and respect in the community.... The coalition that can have the greatest impact in the struggle for human dignity here in America is that of the blacks and forces of labor, because their fortunes are so closely intertwined

Dick Meister is a San Francisco-based writer who has covered labor issues for a half-century as a reporter, editor, author and commentator. Contact him through his website, www.dickmeister.com

Martin Luther King Jr., the radical How we can honor his legacy today

By Caneisha Mills
January 13, 2011

Reprinted from Liberation newspaper.

Today, Martin Luther King Jr.’s name has become synonymous with the entire Civil Rights Movement, and that movement has been portrayed as just another chapter in the unfolding story of constant American progress. Unfortunately, he is rarely remembered for his evolving critique of the U.S. economic system, his dedication to uplifting the poor and his view that mass social movements were needed to continue to transform society.

King did not cause the Civil Rights movement. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, Greensboro sit-ins and 1963 March on Washington all would have happened without him. These heroic actions took place because of the mass awakening of the African American people. It was the people, the oppressed workers, rising up against the apartheid South.

The 1940s and 1950s witnessed a large-scale migration and urbanization of African Americans. This corresponded to a breakdown of the traditional sharecropping arrangements that Jim Crow segregation had served and reinforced.

In the north, where African Americans could vote, the growth of urban communities increased their political clout. In the South, this process concentrated new migrants into close-knit communities and led to the growth of independent institutions, such as the large urban churches. This is the context in which Dr. King and the other young pastors of the Southern Christian Leadership Council emerged.

The rapidly expanding movement used non-violent civil disobedience and the language of freedom to put a spotlight on the hypocrisy of the government’s Cold War rhetoric. At a time when the United States projected itself as beacon of democracy and individual liberty, the “Negro problem” became an international issue that demanded reform.

Thanks to a decade of tireless work, sharp confrontations and the physical sacrifices of millions—most of whose names will never be known—the civil rights movement succeeded at dismantling Jim Crow segregation.

The Third American Revolution

To date, there have been three revolutions in the United States—the American Revolution, the U.S. Civil War and the Civil Rights Movement, or what is better termed a Civil Rights Revolution.

The American Revolution was a political revolution that shed the country’s colonial status. While it unleashed some forces from below, it preserved the economic system of chattel slavery and capitalism. The ruling phrase of the time was liberty, but women, African Americans, non-property-owning whites and Native Americans—who were largely slaughtered by pillage, plunder and disease—were excluded from the calls for equality and freedom.

The U.S. Civil War was a social revolution that smashed slavery. Rather than being a purely political transformation, the social and economic relations were overturned in half the country. Slave owners were stripped of their “property,” as African Americans won the basic human dignity to control their own bodies. During the Reconstruction period, from 1867 to 1877, the old slaveocracy was deprived of political power while African Americans became a decisive political force in the South for the first time.

The overthrow of Reconstruction led to the construction of a new Jim Crow segregation system aimed at depriving Blacks of social, economic and political rights, and preventing any sort of unity between Black and white sharecroppers and farmers. It represented a full-scale political counterrevolution, characterized by fascist Klan terror against anyone who crossed the line.

It took the Civil Rights revolution nearly a century after Reconstruction to destroy Jim Crow’s rule and re-establish the full citizenship rights of African Americans.

King’s legacy, distorted by the ruling class

Today, King is remembered primarily for stressing the need for civil rights for Blacks, but he constantly fused the concept of legal equality with the rights of workers and the poor. He frequently pointed to three universal problems in the United States—war, racism and poverty.

He became particularly involved in the sanitation workers strike in Memphis, Tenn., where he was assassinated. At that stage, King was trying to organize a Poor People’s Campaign to address the massive poverty and inequality for all people in the United States.

King’s opposition to the war in Vietnam is often omitted—particularly by those pro-war politicians who like to claim his legacy. King said, “I had to speak out if I was to erase my name from the bombs which fall over South and North Vietnam. The time had come, indeed it was past due, when I had to disavow and disassociate myself from those who, in the name of peace, burn, maim and kill.”

King’s ideas and positions have been stripped of their potency. Officially, he is only remembered for having a dream of a “color-blind” country. In fact, he had an expansive definition of justice for Black people and all poor people, and a vision which would force this country to reckon with and pay for its historic crimes.

Russian revolutionary V.I. Lenin once remarked: “During the lifetime of great revolutionaries, the oppressing classes constantly hounded them, received their theories with the most savage malice, the most furious hatred and the most unscrupulous campaigns of lies and slander. After their death, attempts are made to convert them into harmless icons.” This applies well to Dr. King.

King in context

Some dismiss King for what appear to be moderate tactics. They point to how his leadership was surpassed by the growing radical and militant trends in the late 1960s.

But this often misrepresents or crudely generalizes his political ideas. King was dealing with practical issues of how to build a movement. His critics often fail to account for the difficult odds facing the movement in the South and the Cold War climate in which he emerged, and leave little space for his own political evolution. They forget just how radically the Civil Rights movement shook U.S. society.

In fact, King can be considered revolutionary in his own right, insofar as he led a political revolution in a particular phase, and attempted to push it further.

After the Civil Rights Act was passed, he emphasized how far the country still was from real justice, asking, “What good does it do to sit at the counter when you cannot afford a hamburger?” He was ridiculed for trying to advance the political direction of the movement by calling for more direct action, and dealing directly with economic issues.

If we can digress for a moment to think of today’s anti-war movement, we see how the ANSWER Coalition (Act Now to Stop War and End Racism), for instance, has adjusted its slogans over time according to the political mood and consciousness of the masses.

Right after the Sept. 11 attacks, ANSWER’s main slogan was “War and racism are not the answer,” which today may seem quite moderate, but it was tailored to the context of a repressive, pro-war hysteria and the consciousness of that moment. A little later that slogan became “Stop the War on Iraq Before it Starts!” After the war began, some “anti-war” groups believed occupation troops had an obligation to stay in Iraq; in contrast, ANSWER emphasized, “End the Occupation—Bring All the Troops Home Now.”

The movement against the war in Iraq developed into a movement against the occupations of Iraq, Palestine and imperialism altogether. Based on the real-life experiences of a decade of war, many people now see the war is not tied to a particular political party but instead to a system that makes profit from weapons and is addicted to war.

Brian Becker elaborated on this point in a piece titled “Civil Rights and the U.S. Revolution” (published in the PSL's Socialism and Liberation magazine) when he wrote: “Human consciousness, including political consciousness, is perhaps the most conservative aspect in the historical process. Revolutions don’t start because of the 'advanced consciousness' of the participants who start the revolutionary process. Consciousness changes and grows in the struggle, based on the conditions of life.”

King’s enduring lessons

Dr. King was dangerous to the political establishment because he started to draw the connection between different struggles and unite them against a common enemy. We cannot protest the war in Afghanistan and forget the racist laws directed at the immigrant community; we cannot fight for women’s rights and not speak to the need for full equality for the LGBT community.

Today the struggle against racism is taking a new direction. A new movement exists in the Latino community that is standing up to the country's many immigrant bashers and demanding full rights for immigrants. In the past three years, hundreds of thousands of Latinos have protested the assault on their family and friends. Supporting this movement is honoring King’s legacy.

In King’s famous Drum Major speech, he said he wanted to feed everyone. He did not mean personally or in soup kitchens—he meant fighting poverty at its root. Here in Washington, D.C., the D.C. Council is taking a vote to cancel assistance to anyone who has received aid from the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families program for more than five years. According to the Washington Post, this will remove 8,000 families from the program. Fighting to expand such social programs is honoring King’s legacy.

The D.C. Council also refers to its budget deficit as a pretext to deny higher wages guaranteed in the newest Teachers Union contract, and institute hiring freeze. Defending public-sector unions is honoring King’s legacy.

When we remember Dr. King, we should remember him not as a speaker at a rally or leader in a demonstration. He was a man attempting to connect the various forms of oppression into a single struggle against social injustice. The only way to remove that injustice is to remove the foundation from which it grows. So let us remember this leader of the Civil Rights Revolution by talking about what it will take to build the next American revolution.