Ferma risposta a Díaz-Balart

nel The Financial Times


16 gennaio '09 - www.granma.cu (RHC)



La Campagna 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 verso Cuba.


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 verso Cuba.


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 contrari.


US increasingly isolated

over policy towards Cuba

Published: January 13 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 13 2009 02:00


From Mr Rob Miller.


Sir, 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.

Fortunately, today 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.

Your editorial “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.

Rob Miller,
Cuba Solidarity Campaign,
London N4, UK


Three conditions apply to lifting

of embargo on Cuba

Published: January 9 2009 02:00 | Last updated: January 9 2009 02:00


From Congressman Lincoln Diaz-Balart.


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 supervised elections.

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 international terrorism.

Lincoln Diaz-Balart,
Member of the US Congress, Florida