di Solidarietà con Cuba ha risposto all’aggressiva lettera inviata al
quotidiano dal congressista d’origine cubana.
Il giornale britannico Financial Times ha pubblicato la
ferma risposta della Campagna di Solidarietà con Cuba
all’aggressiva lettera inviata dal Congressista Lincoln Díaz Balart.
La risposta, firmata da Rob Miller, Direttore
dell’organizzazione amica di Cuba, ha denunciato che la
lettera di Díaz Balart illustra precisamente le ragioni per cui è
necessario che l’amministrazione degli USA adotti una posizione audace nelle
sue relazioni con l’Isola dei Caraibi.
Il Financial Times aveva pubblicato nella sua edizione del 30
dicembre scorso un editoriale che, tra le altre cose, si riferiva alla
necessità che gli Stati Uniti rivedessero integralmente la loro politica
La virulenta risposta del Congressista
Díaz Balart non si era fatta aspettare, con una lettera in cui sosteneva
tutti i sordidi argomenti che danno corpo alla aggressiva e disumana
politica degli Stati Uniti, che dura da ben cinque decenni.
Rob Miller ha segnalato che per molto tempo piccoli gruppi di
cubani radicati in Miami hanno utilizzato il loro potere finanziario e
politico, per forzare il governo degli Stati Uniti a seguire questa
strategia d’aggressione e che, nonostante quel che sostiene il Congressista,
sono gli Stati Uniti quelli che sono sempre più isolati nella loro politica
Miller ha posto come esempio la votazione da parte di
185 nazioni che hanno
votato nella ONU a favore dell’eliminazione del blocco, con tre soli voti
From Mr Rob
Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart’s letter (January
9) illustrates precisely why the new Obama administration must be bold
in forging a more sensible approach to Cuba.
For too long a small
group of rightwing Cuban exiles in Miami have used financial and
political power to leverage the US government to pursue aggressive
policies towards the island.
the congressman is way out of step with the “hundreds of thousands of
Cuban-Americans” he claims to represent, as demonstrated by a November
2008 post-election poll showing that 55 per cent now think the US
"embargo" should end and 65 per cent believe the US should drop
restrictions on travel and money transfers and re-establish dialogue and
diplomatic relations with the island.
To the congressman's
chagrin, the US is increasingly isolated on Cuba. In 2008 185 countries
voted at the United Nations to end the blockade, Latin-American
countries called on President-elect Barack Obama to scrap it, and Europe
continued to engage positively with the island.
“Prepare the ground for post-Castro era” (December 31) rightly senses
the new mood prevailing in the US towards future relations with Cuba.
Whatever differences one may have with Cuban policy, it is far better to
share, exchange and understand than to threaten yet another dangerous
US-sponsored "transition" and continue with a failed policy that is
detrimental not only to the people of Cuba but to the US itself.
Cuba Solidarity Campaign,
London N4, UK
Sir, Your editorial
“Prepare the ground for post-Castro era” (December 31) was
uncharacteristically ill-informed. As a representative in the US
Congress of hundreds of thousands of Cuban-Americans and the author of
the codification into US law in 1996 of the embargo on the Cuban
dictatorship, please allow me to offer the following information.
The reason we
maintain a trade and tourism embargo on the Cuban dictatorship (a regime
that has kept itself in power through terror and repression for 50 years)
is, first, because it is in the national interest of the US for there to
be a democratic transition in Cuba, as it obviously is in the interest
of the long-suffering people of Cuba; second, because, as in the
democratic transitions that occurred in Spain or Portugal or Greece, or
in those that took place in South Africa or Chile or the Dominican
Republic, it is absolutely critical that there be some form of external
pressure for a democratic transition to take place in Cuba once the
dictator is no longer on the scene (and Fidel Castro, while very ill, is
still the ultimate power in totalitarian Cuba). At the time of the
disappearance from the scene of the Cuban dictator, it will be
absolutely critical for the US embargo to be in place as it is today,
with its lifting being conditional, as it is by law, on three
fundamental developments in Cuba.
Number one, the
liberation of all political prisoners. Number two, the legalisation of
all political parties, independent labour unions and the independent
press. And number three, the scheduling of free, internationally
At the time of the
disappearance of the dictator in Cuba, the US embargo, with its lifting
being conditional upon those three developments, as it is by law, will
constitute critical leverage for the Cuban people to achieve those three
conditions. In other words, for them to achieve their freedom.
With regard to your
allegation that US sanctions have “failed”, I would ask you to remember
what the Cuban dictatorship used to do when it received $5bn or $6n
annually from the Soviet Union, an amount similar to what it would begin
receiving each year from US tourism alone if sanctions were lifted.
I would ask you to
remember Grenada, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Angola, Eritrea and so on.
This is not the time to give the Cuban dictatorship countless billions
of dollars unilaterally, while Cuba’s prisons remain full of heroic
political prisoners and while the regime remains a state sponsor of
Member of the US Congress, Florida