|
Dear fellow Cubans;
Distinguished guests:
On this 51st anniversary of the attack on the Moncada fortress
on July 26, 1953 I shall address a sinister character that keeps threatening,
insulting and slandering us. This is not a whim or an agreeable option; it is a
necessity and a duty.
On June 21, at the Anti-imperialist Forum I read Epistle Number
Two to the president of the United States, responding to an infamous State
Department report on trafficking in human beings, one of those reports the
government of that country usually issues, as if it were the supreme moral judge
of the world. In that document Cuba is accused of being one of the countries
that promotes sexual tourism and child pornography.
Hardly two weeks went by, and instead of keeping a decent
silence about the irrefutable truth contained in the Epistle, the wire services
brought news of an election speech by Bush in Tampa, Florida containing new,
more perfidious accusations and insults, the clearly aimed at slandering Cuba
and justifying the threats of aggression and the brutal measures that they had
just taken against our people.
The French press agency AFP reported the following from Tampa
on July 16:
"President George Bush launched a harsh attack on Cuba when he
defined it as ‘a major destination for sex tourism’ and said that the United
States has a special duty to lead a world struggle against human trafficking for
forced labour or sexual purposes."
"Cuba is one of the 10 countries cited by the State Department
in a report issued in June in which it lists the governments which tolerate
human trafficking or fail to fight this crime."
"The regime of Fidel Castro has turned Cuba into a major
destination for sex tourism replacing Southeast Asia as a destination for
pedophiles and sex tourists from the United Sates and Canada," Bush
claimed.
"At a conference in Tampa, Florida, the president pointed to
Cuba as one of the worst offenders in this area."
"Sex tourism is a vital source of hard
currency to keep his corrupt government afloat," he claimed.
"Bush said that putting an end to human trafficking will be an
essential part of his foreign policy."
"The traffic in human beings brings shame and suffering to our
country and we shall lead the fight against it," he promised.
"You are in a fight against evil, and the American people are
grateful for your dedication and service," he told those at the conference.
"Human life is the gift of our Creator and it should never be
for sale."
A dispatch from the Spanish press agency EFE
indicated:
"We also face a problem only 90 miles off our
shores, Bush said in Florida."
"He quoted a study which found that Cuba has "replaced
Southeast Asia as a destination for pedophiles and sex tourists."
"As restrictions on travel to Cuba were eased during the 1990s,
the study found an influx of American and Canadian tourists contributed to a
sharp increase in child prostitution in Cuba."
"My administration is working toward a comprehensive solution
of this problem: The rapid, peaceful transition to democracy in Cuba."
"We have put a strategy in place to hasten the day when no
Cuban child is exploited to finance a failed revolution and every Cuban citizen
will live in freedom."
"Bush said that ‘Human life is the gift of our Creator and it
should never be for sale."
"It takes a special kind of depravity to exploit and hurt the
most vulnerable members of society. Human traffickers rob children of their
innocence; they expose them to the worst of life before they have seen much of
life. Traffickers tear families apart. They treat their victims as nothing more
than goods and commodities for sale to the highest bidder."
And to top off this odd news, the same press dispatch added
some words spoken by John Ashcroft in his speech introducing Bush to the
National Training Conference on Human Trafficking:
"In the 19th Century President Abraham Lincoln held firm to a
vision of freedom for all and was rightly called the great emancipator."
"In the 21st Century we have a great leader who has made us see
that liberty is not a gift from the United States to the world but a gift to
humanity from the Almighty."
Another wire report from the English news agency Reuters
read:
 "Friday, the US president accused the Cuban president of having
turned his Caribbean island into a sex tourism destination and of contributing
to the world problem of human trafficking".
The Italian press agency ANSA reported:
"The regime in Havana is adding to its crimes: it welcomes sex
tourism", said Bush who even repeated a supposed quote by Castro, ‘Cuba has the
cleanest and most educated prostitutes in the world.’"
Later, wire services have reported that the quotation of
something I supposedly said on this subject, which the US President used in the
Tampa speech I just mentioned to back up his serious accusations, was taken from
a paper on Cuba written by Charles Turnbull a law student from Vanderbilt
University in the United States who has emphatically stated that Bush’s speech
misconstrued the real meaning of a sentence included in his work, and clarified
this and other matters in the following way:
"Prostitution boomed in the Caribbean nation after the collapse
of the Soviet Union…"
"Castro, who had outlawed prostitution when he took power in
1959, initially had few resources to combat it. But beginning in 1996, Cuban
authorities began to crack down on the practice."
"Although it still exists, it is far less visible and it would
be inaccurate to say the government promotes it".
On Monday, July 19, Bush administration officials admitted they
had no other source for the quote except the paper written by the aforementioned
student.
Given the fact that it was shown that the US President had
launched an extremely grave accusation based on a sentence found in a paper
written by an American student, who himself refuted the deliberate way Bush
misconstrued it, it’s hard to imagine a more bizarre response than that given by
a Whitehouse spokesperson when told about this refutation.
According to the news agency report, the spokesperson simply,
"…defended the inclusion [of the sentence] arguing that it expressed an
essential truth about Cuba", in other words, for the White House "the
essential truth about Cuba" is anything that the president conjures up in
his mind whether it has anything to do with reality or not.
This is exactly the kind of fundamentalist approach that the
President constantly resorts to when there are more than enough data, arguments,
truth, reasons, and facts on a particular subject but the only determining
factor is the idea he has in his mind or the idea that suits him: anything
becomes the absolute and irrefutable truth simply because Mr. Bush imagines it
to be so.
Many people in the world who know very little about the Cuban
Revolution might fall victim to the lies and tricks the US government spreads
through the huge media available to it.
But there are many others, especially in poor countries who are
aware of what the Cuban revolution is about, of its marked dedication, from the
very beginning, to provide education and healthcare services to all its children
and the whole population; its spirit of solidarity that has led it to cooperate
selflessly with dozens of Third World countries; its strict adherence to the
highest moral values, its ethical principles, its lofty concept of the dignity
and honour of its homeland and its people for which Cuban revolutionaries have
always been willing to give up their lives. There is no doubt that these many
friends, all over the world, will be wondering how it is possible that such
unspeakable, foul slander is hurled against Cuba.
This obliges me to give a most serious and honest explanation
of the causes, which in my view, give rise to these inconceivable, irresponsible
statements by the President of the most powerful nation on the planet, the same
who is threatening to wipe the Cuban revolution from the face of the Earth.
I shall do this as objectively as possible, making no arbitrary
statements or shamelessly misconstruing other people’s words, sentences and
concepts. I shall avoid any petty sentiment of vengeance or personal
dislike.
A theme that has been widely documented in several books by
outstanding American scientific authors and other personalities is the current
US President’s alcoholism which lasted two decades when he was between 20 and 40
years old. This feature has been rigorously and impressively dealt with, from a
psychiatric point of view and using scientific criteria, by Dr. Justin A. Frank
in a now famous book called "Bush on the Couch".
Dr. Frank begins by saying that it is important to
scientifically define whether Bush was an alcoholic, or if he still is one. He
has literally said:
"… the more pressing question involves the influence his years
of heavy drinking and subsequent abstinence still have on him and those around
him". (p.39)
He goes on to explain and I quote verbatim:
"Alcoholism is a potentially fatal, lifelong disease that is
notoriously difficult to arrest permanently" (p. 40)
Later, referring to the man who is now President of the United
States, he says:
"Bush has said publicly that he quit drinking without the help
of AA (an organization dedicated to helping alcoholics) or any substance abuse
programme, claiming that he stopped forever with the assistance of such
spiritual tools as bible study and conversations with the evangelist Billy
Graham".
On page 40 of the book he recounts that, according to
ex-presidential speech writer David Frum, when Bush took over the Oval office he
summoned a group of religious leaders, asked for their prayers and told them:
"There is only one reason that I am in the Oval Office and not
a bar… I found faith, I found God. I am here because of the power of
prayer".
Dr. Frank thinks that this statement might be true and goes on
to say the following:
"…surely all Americans would like to believe that the president
no longer drinks, even if we have no way of knowing for certain. If so, he fits
the profile of a former drinker whose alcoholism has been arrested but not
treated".
He then adds:
" Former drinkers who abstain without the benefit of the AA
program are often referred to as "dry drunks", a label that has been bandied
about on the Internet and elsewhere in reference to Bush. "Dry drunk" isn’t a
medical term, and not one I use in a clinical setting. But even without
labelling Bush as such, it’s hard to ignore the many troubling elements of his
character among the traits that the recovery literature associates with the
condition, including grandiosity, judgmentalism, intolerance, detachment, denial
of responsibility, a tendency toward over-reaction and an aversion to
introspection." (p. 41)
Dr. Frank insists that he personally has treated alcoholics who
held their addiction in check without proper treatment but that they are
generally not very successful in learning to control the anxiety that they once
tried to suppress by drinking and he explains that:
"Their rigid attempts to manage anxiety make any psychological
insight hard-won. Some can’t even face the anxiety of admitting their
alcoholism.
Dr. Frank then goes on to say:
"Without that admission, I have found, even former drinkers
cannot truly change, or learn from their own experience".
And then referring to Bush specifically he argues the
following:
"The pattern of blame and denial, which recovering alcoholics
work so hard to break, seems to be ingrained in the alcoholic personality; it’s
rarely limited to his or her drinking. The habit of placing blame and denying
responsibility is so prevalent in George W. Bush’s personal history that it is
apparently triggered by even the mildest threat"
"… The rigidity of Bush’s behaviour is perhaps most readily
apparent in his well-documented reliance on his daily routines —the famously
short meetings, sacrosanct exercise schedule, daily Bible readings, and limited
office hours. A healthy person is able to alter his routine; a rigid one
cannot". (p.43)
"Of course" —the eminent US doctor goes on, and I quote—
"we all need rest and relaxation, time to regroup, but Bush appears to need it
more than most. And this is hardly a surprise —among other reasons, because the
anxiety of being president might pose a real risk of leading him back to
drinking." (p. 43)
"Along with rigid routines go rigid thought processes —another
hallmark of the Bush presidency. We see it in the stubborn, almost obsessive way
in which he holds on to ideas and plans after they have been discredited, from
his image of himself as a "uniter, not a divider" to his conviction that Iraq
held weapons of mass destruction (or, in absence of such weapons, that somehow
"America did the right thing in Iraq" nevertheless). Such rigidity of thought is
not motivated by simple stubbornness; the untreated alcoholic, consumed with the
task of managing the anxieties that might make him reach for a drink, simply
can’t tolerate any threat to his status quo".
And Dr. Frank adds that such intolerance generally leads to
responses that are out of proportion to the magnitude of the actual threat.
"This may help to explain the dramatic contrast between George
W’s response to Saddam Hussein and that of his father, who carefully built a
coalition, took action only after Kuwait had been invaded, and then proceeded
with prudence and caution once the fighting was underway — the behaviour of a
seasoned leader who knew he was responsible for countless others’ lives, not an
alcoholic accustomed to taking dramatic measures to protect his own."
Continuing his analysis, Dr. Frank indicates:
"Two questions that the press seems particularly determined to
ignore have hung silently in the air since before Bush took office: Is he still
drinking? And if not, is he impaired by all the years he did spend drinking?
Both questions need to be addressed in any serious assessment of his
psychological state". (p.48)
With regard to the first question, he points out the
possibility that Bush is managing his anxiety with medication to keep him off
alcohol and he makes special reference to his strange behaviour at press
conferences. On this point he says:
"In writing about Bush’s halting appearance in a press
conference just before the start of the Iraq War, Washington Post media critic
Tom Shales speculated that "the president may have been ever so slightly
medicated".
"More troubling though, are the appearances that arouse
suspicion not because of how he talks but what he says. He has repeatedly
engaged in confabulation, filling in gaps in his memory with what he believes
are facts —most notably on July 14, 2003, when he stood next to Kofi Annan and
made up the idea that America had given Saddam "a chance to allow the inspectors
in, and he wouldn’t let them in". (As the Washington Post noted, "Hussein had,
in fact, admitted the inspectors and Bush had opposed extending their work
because he did not believe them effective". Confabulation is a common phenomenon
among drinkers, as is perseveration, which is evident in Bush’s tendency to
repeat key words and phrases, as if the repetition helps him remain calm and
stay on track." (p. 49)
And Dr. Frank concludes his analysis of these two questions
with the following words:
"Even if we assume, moreover, that George W. Bush’s drinking
days are behind him, the question remains how much lasting damage may have been
done before he stopped —beyond the considerable impact on his personality that
we can trace to his untreated abstinence. Any comprehensive psychological or
psychoanalytical study of President Bush would have to explore how much the
brain and its functions are changed by more than twenty years of heavy drinking.
In a recent study out of the University of California/San Francisco Medical
Centre, researchers found that heavy drinkers who do not call themselves
alcoholics reveal that "their level of drinking constitutes a problem that
warrants treatment". The study found that the heavy drinkers in its sample were
"significantly impaired" on measures of working memory, processing speed,
attention, executive function and balance. Serious research about long-term
recovery from alcohol abuse is still underway. Science has established that
alcohol itself is toxic to the brain, both to its anatomy (as the brain gets
smaller and fissures between and around the hemisphere get larger) and to its
neurophysiology. But recovery does occur with continued sobriety, extending over
a five-year period for many alcoholics. Bush claims to have been sober for more
that fifteen years, and very well may have improved to pre-alcohol levels.
However, even chronic alcoholics who recover their compromised mental functions
often suffer lingering damage to their ability to process new information.
Important neuropsychological functions are impaired: The new information is
essentially put into a file that is lost in the brain.
"Former heavy drinkers often have trouble distinguishing
between relevant and inconsequential information. They also may lose some of
their ability to maintain concentration. All one has to do to observe Bush’s
inattention is watch him listening to a speech given by someone else, watch his
behaviour at times on the campaign trail, or consider the obviously desperate
effort he makes to retain focus in every speech he gives." (p.50)
Finally, Dr. Frank points out that Bush would reduce the fear
of many Americans by submitting himself to psychological tests that could
scientifically measure the effects of alcoholism on his brain function and
warns:
"Otherwise, we are left to suspect —with reason— that our
president may be impaired in his ability to make sense of complex ideas and
briefings" (p. 51)
And he ends up by saying:
"We all may be a little afraid to find out: after all, he has
already held office for three years and has led our nation into war. But if we
fail to do so, the consequences may indict every one of us". (p. 51)
Another aspect discussed in depth and in detail by Dr. Justin
A. Frank in this book, "Bush on the Couch", is that of President Bush’s
religious fundamentalism.
Dr. Frank explains how, in trying to find relief from the
internal chaos that drink sometimes appeased but eventually intensified, Bush
may have found in religion a source of peace, not totally different from that
given by alcohol, as well as a set of rules which help him to manage both the
external world and his inner spiritual world.
He suggests that an analysis of the role of fundamentalism in
Bush’s life would show that one of the many ways that Bush employs religion as a
defence mechanism is by using it as a substitute for illegal substances and says
that Bush uses religion to simplify and even replace thought so that, to a
certain extent, he does not even need to think. He adds that Bush, by putting
himself on the side of good —on God’s side— places himself above mundane
discussion and debate. Religion serves as a shield to protect him from
challenges, including those that he himself would otherwise create.
Dr. Frank wonders how Bush reached this point and then explains
that, the Bush family tradition has long been fuelled by faith, by the belief in
a God linked closely to moral rectitude but he makes this distinction:
"Yet President Bush’s religious orientation represents an
important departure from his family. Though certain aspects of the family
tradition have been maintained —notably the formality of religious
participation— his mid-life conversion to a more fundamentalist approach stands
in dramatic contrast to the spiritual life of his father…" (p.56)
"And a review of the events leading up to Bush’s conscious
embrace of fundamentalism shows that it clearly occurred at a moment when he was
reaching for solutions, in a time of almost desperate need."
Dr Frank goes on to explain that fundamentalist religions
narrow the universe of opportunities and divide the world into good and bad, in
absolute terms that leave no space for questioning and on this point he
argues:
"The view of the self is similarly simplified. Just as
fundamentalist creationist teachings deny history, the fundamentalist notion of
conversion or rebirth encourages the believer to see himself as disconnected
from history. George W. Bush’s evasive, self-serving defence of his life before
he was born again displays just this tendency. "It doesn’t do any good to
inventory the mistakes I made when I was young", he has insisted. "I think the
way … to answer questions about specific behaviour is to remind people that when
I was young and irresponsible, I was young and irresponsible. I changed…" To the
believer, the power of spiritual absolution not only erases the sins of the
past, but divorces the current self from the historical sinner". (p.60)
Dr. Frank makes it clear that there is nothing inherently
unnatural in the fact that Bush seeks protection from his faith and that, even
when this makes him stronger, the rigidity of his thought and speech patterns
and of his agenda point to a considerable fragility. He explains that Bush’s
fear of everything —from disagreement to terrorist attacks— are sometimes
painfully visible, even (or especially) through his denials and that he is a man
desperately seeking protection. Dr. Frank wonders: "But what is George W.
Bush so eager to protect himself against?" and he answers the question with
the following analysis:
"His tightly held belief system shields him from challenges to
his ideas —from critics and opponents, but, more important, from himself. Just
beneath the surface, it’s hard not to believe that he suffers from an innate
fear of falling apart, a fear too terrifying for him to confront." (p.64)
"For someone so desperate not to lose his way, clinging to a
belief (or even a few key phrases), and sticking to them, is yet another way to
protect against falling apart. President Bush’s press conferences have offered
disturbing evidence of this ongoing anxiety —evidence so unmistakable that it’s
little wonder that the White House has proven so hesitant to schedule such
events at all. After one particularly disastrous performance in July 2003, the
Slate political columnist Timothy Noah noted that: "Bush seemed jangled"; in a
damning editorial the following day, the New York Times noted that the
president’s answers were "vague and sometimes nearly incoherent" —suggesting,
perceptively, that Bush was "bedazzled by his administration’s own
mythmaking"
He gives some examples of phrases Bush used repeatedly during
that press conference:
"And so we’re making progress. It’s slowly but surely
making progress of bringing the —those who terrorize their fellow
citizens to justice, and making progress about convincing the Iraqi
people that freedom is real. And as they become more convinced that freedom is
real, they’ll begin to assume more responsibilities that are required in a free
society…
"And the threat is a real threat. It’s a
threat that where —we obviously don’t have specific data, we don’t know
when, where, what. But we do know a couple of things…obviously, we’re talking to
foreign governments and foreign airlines to indicate to them the reality of the
threat…
"I don’t know how close we are to getting Saddam
Hussein. You know —it’s closer that we were yesterday, I guess. All I
know is we’re on the hunt. It’s like if you had asked me right before we got his
sons how close we were to get his sons, I’d say, I don’t know, but we’re on
the hunt.
"Well first of all, the war on terror goes on, as I continually
remind people… The threat that you asked about, Steve, reminds us that we
need to be on the hunt, because the war on terror goes on…
"I just described to you that there is a threat to the
United States. There is no doubt in my mind, Campbell, that Saddam Hussein was a
threat to the United States’ security, and a threat to peace in
the region…
"Saddam Hussein was a threat. The United Nations viewed
him as a threat. That’s why they passed twelve resolutions. Predecessors
of mine viewed him as a threat. We gathered a lot of intelligence. That
intelligence was good, sound intelligence on which I made a decision… (pp.
65-66)
And Dr. Frank goes on to say:
"So powerful are his fears that he can’t even face them. His
infamous early advice to Americans less than two weeks after 9/11 —when he told
Americans to continue to shop and travel as before, in apparent denial of the
radical measures he was at the same time taking in response to the nation’s
newfound vulnerability— suggests just how simplistically he viewed the
situation, closing himself off to worry and anxiety. Compare his response to
that of New York’s mayor, Rudolph Giuliani, who faced his fears, rolled up his
sleeves and got to work —making people feel far safer than Bush’s stilted denial
ever did.
"Bush has continued to cite divine instruction to explain his
actions since assuming office. As reported in Israel’s Haaretz News, Bush said,
"God told me to strike at al Qaida and I struck them, and then he instructed me
to strike at Saddam, which I did".
Finally, Dr. Frank offers these thoughts:
"The Biblical struggle of good and evil has resonated
throughout his discourse since 9/11, from his repeated use of the term "crusade"
to his characterisation of the terrorists as "evildoers" and grouping of Iraq,
Iran and North Korea as the "Axis of Evil". At the same time, he presents the
United States as nothing more that a nation of wholly innocent victims.
"In externalizing evil in this way, while absolving America of
responsibility, Bush has transformed his unintegrated infantile worldview into a
starkly combative (and primitive) foreign policy.
"Bush’s rhetoric" —Dr. Frank concludes— "highlights how
he identifies the concepts of himself as president with both God and America:
for him these three appear to have become somewhat interchangeable. Unable to
mourn the dead of 9/11 enough to allow for a full investigation of how it
happened —and what responsibility we might have had— he blindly attacks the
"enemy" he perceives to be everywhere, a terrorist suddenly hiding under
rock".
In his book "Stupid White Men", Michael Moore points out that
Bush exhibits obvious symptoms of not being able to read at an adult level and
writes the following as part of an open letter to Bush:
"1. George, are you able to read and write on an adult
level?
"It appears to me and many others that, sadly, you may be a
functional illiterate. This is nothing to be ashamed of… Millions of Americans
cannot read and write above a fourth grade level.
"But let me ask you this: if you have trouble comprehending the
complex position papers you are handed as the Leader of the Mostly-Free World,
how can we entrust something like our nuclear secrets to you?
"All the signs of illiteracy area there —and apparently no one
has challenged you about them. The first clue was what you named as your
favourite childhood book, "The Very Hungry Caterpillar", you said.
"Unfortunately, that book wasn’t even published until a year
after you graduated from college."
"One thing is clear to everyone —you can’t speak the English
language in sentences we can comprehend.
"If you are going to be Commander-in-Chief, you have to be able
to communicate your orders. What if these little slip-ups keep happening? Do you
know how easy it would be to turn a little faux pas into a national-security
nightmare?
"Your aides say that you don’t (can’t?) read the briefing
papers they give you, and that you ask them to read them for you or to you."
"Please , don’t take any of this personally. Perhaps it’s a
learning disability. Some sixty million Americans have learning
disabilities".
In his book "Against All Enemies", Richard Clarke writes that
when Bush got to the White House, "Early on we were told that the president
is not a big reader".
Bob Woodward’s book "Bush at War" tells that, in a National
Security Council meeting during the Afghanistan war, Bush said: "I don’t read
the editorial pages. I don’t --the hyperventilation that tends to take place
around those cables, every expert and every former colonel and all that, is just
background noise".
Thus far I have given a very brief summary of what has been
said on some points by outstanding Americans, things which help to explain the
strange behaviour and aggressiveness of the US President.
I do not want to elaborate now on more sensitive issues like
those whose exposure cost his life to J.H. Hatfield, author of the book
"Fortunate Son", and others of great interest analyzed by truly brilliant,
brave, eminent authors.
Mr. Bush’s lies and slanders and those of his closest advisors
were fabricated in a hurry to justify the atrocious measures taken against
Cuban-born people living in the United States who have close family ties in
Cuba.
This outrage, as we warned on June 21, might have adverse
political consequences in Florida which could play a decisive role in this
year’s elections. The idea of a punishment vote is gaining ground among
thousands of Cuban-Americans, many of whom would normally have voted for
Bush.
Hatred and blindness have lead this administration to take a
stupid, immoral action under pressure from the terrorist mob which gave Bush a
fraudulent victory when he had a million votes less than his rival nationwide,
and a narrow majority of 537 votes in Florida where thousands of black Americans
were prevented from exercising their right to vote whereas many dead people
‘exercised’ theirs. Fifteen or twenty thousand voters could sink his hopes of
re-election. These brutal measures have also been criticized all over the
country.
The overwhelming majority of those who are members of or run
that terrorist mob —which decided no less a thing than the election of the
President of the United States— are former Batista supporters and their
descendents; or they are groups who for years have been involved in the
terrorist actions, pirate attacks, assassination plots against Cuban
revolutionary leaders and all kinds of armed aggressions against our country; or
they were big landowners and relatives of the upper middle classes who were
affected by revolutionary laws and who previously had all kinds of privileges
and many of whom have amassed huge fortunes and have gained influence in
important power circles in the US governments.
Over 90 percent of those who have emigrated from Cuba since the
triumph of the revolution have done so through normal channels and for economic
reasons, their leaving authorized by the Revolution that placed no obstacles.
But Cuban immigrants were forced to go under the Caudine Forks of that powerful
mafia whose influence they could not easily ignore.
Unlike many millions of Latin Americans, including Haitians and
other Caribbeans, that emigrate legally and illegally to the United States and
are called immigrants, Cubans, with no exception whatsoever, are called
exiles.
On the other hand, the absurd Cuban Adjustment Act has caused
the loss of countless Cuban lives by rewarding and encouraging illegal
emigration and giving Cubans extraordinary privileges that are not granted to
citizens of any other country in the world.
Nevertheless, years ago, even before the collapse of the Soviet
Union and the special period that ensued, and despite the risk of espionage and
terrorist plans originating in the United States which the measures entailed,
Cuba gave permits to émigrés so they could visit their relatives and their
country of origin, whereas the Bush administration is abruptly closing the doors
because of its fanatical obsession of bringing Cuba to its knees through
economic suffocation.
And, to that same end of depriving our country of any income
whatsoever, he labels the tourist industry in Cuba sex tourism and calls those
who visit our country coming from the United States "paedophiles" and "pleasure
seekers".
Mr Bush does not hesitate either in tarring Canadian tourists
with the same brush when everybody knows that the overwhelming majority of them
are pensioners and senior citizens who, in the company of their relatives, come
to enjoy the exceptional safety and calm, the politeness, culture and
hospitality that they find in our country.
What would Mr. Bush call the tens of millions of tourists who
visit the United States every year where casinos, gambling dens, areas of male
and female prostitution and many other activities related to pornography and sex
abound, none of which exist in Cuba and all of which are alien to the
revolutionary culture of our people?
What would he call the tens of millions of Europeans who visit
Spain every year where many pages in the papers are used to advertising the
names, addresses, the physical, cultural and intellectual characteristics and
the specialities and individual gifts to suit all tastes of those who exercise
the age-old profession of prostitution? Would he call the US and Spanish tourist
industries sex tourism?
None of the aforementioned activities take place in Cuba.
However, in the fevered and fundamentalist mind of the all-powerful gentleman in
the White House and in those of his most intimate advisors, Cuba must now be
"saved" not only from "tyranny", Cuban children must now be "saved from sexual
exploitation and trafficking in persons" "the world must be freed from this
dreadful problem which takes place 90 miles away from the United States".
Has no one told him that in Cuba before the triumph of the
revolution in 1959 about 100,000 women were directly or indirectly involved in
prostitution for reasons of poverty, discrimination and lack of work and that
the Revolution educated these women and found them jobs, and outlawed the
so-called "tolerance zones" which existed in the pseudo-republic and the
neo-colony installed by the United States?
Has no one told him that the Cuban children, whose physical,
mental and moral health is the number one priority of the Revolution, are
protected by more severe laws than those of the United States and that they all
attend school, including more than 50,000 who suffer from mental or physical
disabilities and that, without exceptions, receive specialized care in special
education centres?
Has no one told him that infant mortality is lower in Cuba than
it is in the United States and that it continues to decrease?
Has no one dared to whisper in his ear that Cuba occupies an
outstanding and internationally recognized place in education; that health and
education services are free and extend to the whole population; that today
programs are underway in education, health and culture that will place Cuba far
above all the other countries in the world?
The historic session of the National Assembly of People’s Power
held on July 1 and 2, exposed them and showed how ridiculous is the grotesque
over 400-page-long-report which gives an ample account and full details of the
neo-colonial and annexationist programs the fascist group which begot this
disgusting project propose to implement to the detriment of the Cuban people and
their sovereignty. This report has done nothing if not unite our people even
more and give a boost to their fighting spirit.
They must be absolutely mad to talk of such things as
implementing literacy and vaccination programs in Cuba where illiteracy was
eradicated a long time ago, where minimum school attendance is up to grade nine
and where children are vaccinated against 13 diseases. Actually, such programs
should be applied to tens of millions of Americans who are left out, who do not
enjoy the benefits of social security and who have not been to school or are
completely illiterate or functionally illiterate.
The US administration has not even dared to say a single word
about the generous offer that our country made of saving, in a short 5 year
period, a life for every life lost in the Twin Towers, by providing free health
care to 3000 US citizens who have no access to healthcare services that are
indispensable for preserving life. Neither have they replied to the question of
whether or not those who may decide to come to Cuba to take advantage of this
opportunity would be punished.
It is really revealing that on the very same day that Mr. Bush
spouted such outrageous slanders and threats, a prestigious American scientific
institution from California signed an agreement with the Cuban Molecular
Immunology Centre for transferring technology developed in our country for the
clinical trials and later manufacture of three promising vaccines in the battle
against cancer, which, as you know, kills more than half a million Americans
every year.
It is only fair to acknowledge that in this case the US
authorities did not set any obstacle.
This fact shows how the fruits of everything I have talked
about before are beginning to sprout all over our country, despite 45 years of a
harsh blockade and of aggressions by US governments.
And these are not biological weapons, nor chemical weapons, nor
nuclear weapons; these are scientific discoveries which could help all
humanity.
Let’s hope that, in Cuba’s case, God does not ‘instruct’ Mr.
Bush to attack our country but that he rather inspires him to avoid this
colossal mistake! He had better check on any divine belligerent order by
consulting the Pope and other prestigious dignitaries and theologians from the
Christian churches, asking them for their opinion
Excuse me, Mr. President of the United States of America, for
not writing a third epistle to you this time but it would have been difficult to
analyze this subject in that way. It might have been taken for a personal insult
and I rather adhere to common courtesy.
Hail, Caesar! I say, but this time I add: Those who are willing
to die have no fear of your enormous power, of your unbridled rage, nor of your
dangerous and cowardly threats against Cuba!
Long live the truth!
Long live human dignity!
July 26, 2004
|
