A Brilliant and Courageous Statement
Attending to other matters that are now top priority, I momentarily strayed from the frequency with which I had been writing reflections in the year 2010; however, Hugo Chávez Frías’ proclamation last Thursday the 30th, obliges me to write these lines.
The president of Venezuela is one of the men who has done the most for the health and education of his people; since these are subjects where the Cuban Revolution has accumulated the most experience, we gladly collaborate to the maximum with this sister country in both areas.
It is by no means a matter of that country lacking doctors; quite the opposite. They had an abundance of doctors, among them there were even first-class professionals, just as in other Latin American countries. It is a social matter. The best medical doctors and the most sophisticated equipment could be placed at the service of private medicine, as it is in all capitalist countries. And often not even that, because in underdeveloped capitalism, like the type that used to exist in Venezuela, the wealthy class had sufficient means to go to the best hospitals in the United States or Europe, something that was and is customary and nobody can deny it.
Even worse, the United States and Europe have been noted for seducing the best specialists from any exploited Third World country to abandon their homeland and to emigrate to the consumer societies. Training doctors for that world in the developed countries implies fabulous sums of money that millions of poor Latin American and Caribbean families would never be able to pay. In Cuba, that used to happen until the Revolution took up the challenge, not just of training doctors capable of serving our own country, but also the other peoples of Latin America, the Caribbean or the world.
Never have we stolen the intelligences of other peoples. On the contrary; in Cuba we have trained tens of thousands of doctors and other top-level professionals, for free, in order to send them back to their own countries.
Thanks to the profound Bolivarian and Marti-inspired revolutions, Venezuela and Cuba are countries where health and education have been extraordinarily developed. Every citizen has the real right to receive general education and professional training at no cost, something that the United States has not been able to ensure for all its inhabitants. The reality is that the government of that country invests billions of dollars every year on its military machine and its war adventures. Furthermore, it is the greatest exporter of weapons and the instruments of death and the greatest market for drugs in the world. Because of this traffic, tens of thousands of Latin American lives are lost every year.
It is such a real and well-known fact that more than 50 years ago, a president having military origins bitterly denounced the decisive power accumulated by the military-industrial complex in that country.
These words would be superfluous if it were not for the intervention of the hateful and repugnant campaign unleashed by the massive Venezuelan oligarchy media, at the service of that empire, using the health problems being experienced by the Bolivarian President. We are united to the President with close and indestructible bonds of friendship that came into being from his first visit to our homeland on December 13th, 1994.
Some were surprised by the coincidence of his visit to Cuba with the necessity of seeking medical care. The Venezuelan President visited out country with the same aim that took him to Brazil and Ecuador. He had no intention of receiving medical care in our homeland.
It is well-known that for a few years now, a team of Cuban health specialists are providing their services to the Venezuelan President who, loyal to his Bolivarian principles, never considered them to be undesirable foreigners, but sons and daughters of the Great Latin American Homeland on behalf of which The Liberator fought, right up to his last living breath.
The first contingent of Cuban doctors left for Venezuela when the Vargas Stadium tragedy occurred, taking thousands of this noble country’s lives. This action of solidarity was nothing new; it made up a tradition well-established in our country from the first years of the Revolution, from the time almost half a century ago when Cuban doctors were sent to recently-independent Algeria. That tradition grew stronger while the Cuban Revolution, in the midst of a cruel blockade, was training internationalist doctors. Countries such as Peru, Somoza’s Nicaragua and other countries in our hemisphere and in the Third World were suffering from tragedies as a result of earthquakes or other causes that required Cuba’s solidarity. So, our country became the nation in the world that had the highest rate of doctors and specialized health personnel, with extremely high levels of experience and professional capabilities.
President Chávez put a great emphasis in relating with our health personnel. This way, a bond of confidence and friendship was born between him and the Cuban doctors who were always very sensitive to the treatment of the Venezuelan leader; and he was able to create thousands of health centres and outfit them with the necessary equipment in order to provide free services for all Venezuelans. There was no other government in the world that did so much, in such a short time, for the health of its people.
A large percentage of Cuban health personnel provided services in Venezuela and many of them also acted as teachers in certain subjects that were being taught to train more than 20,000 young Venezuelans who began to graduate as medical doctors. Many of them began their studies in our country. The internationalist doctors, members of Battalion 51, graduates of the Latin American School of Medicine, have earned solid prestige in carrying out complicated and difficult missions. On these bases my relations in this field with President Hugo Chávez were built.
I should add that in the course of more than twelve years, since February 2, 1999, the president and leader of the Venezuelan Revolution has not rested one single day and thus he occupies a unique place in the history of this hemisphere. All of his energy has been dedicated to the Revolution.
One could say that for every extra hour Chávez dedicates to his work, the president of the United States rests for two hours.
It was difficult, almost impossible, that his health would not suffer some sort of breakdown and this is what happened in the last few months.
He is a person used to the rigors of military life and he would stoically put up with the aches and pains that were plaguing him with ever increasing frequency. Given the friendly relations developed and the constant exchanges between Cuba and Venezuela, added to my personal health experience that I underwent since the proclamation of July 30, 2006, it is not unusual that I should have noticed the need for a strict medical check-up for the President. He is far too generous in granting me any special merit in this matter.
Of course, I admit that it was no easy task that I set for myself. It wasn’t difficult for me to notice that he had some health problems. Seven months had gone by since his last visit to Cuba. The medical team devoted to caring for his health had pleaded for me to take up the matter. From the very first moment, the President’s attitude was one of informing the people, with complete clarity, about the state of his health. That was why, at the point by then of returning, via his minister of Foreign Affairs, he informed the people about his health up to that instant and he promised to keep them informed in detail.
Each treatment was accompanied by rigorous cellular and laboratory analyses, of the kind that are done under such circumstances.
One of the tests, several days following the first surgery, showed results that determined more radical surgery and special treatment for the patient.
In his dignified message on June 30th, the noticeably recovered President speaks about the state of his health with absolute clarity.
I admit that it was no easy task for me to inform my friend about the new development. I could see the dignity with which he received the news that –while his mind was dealing with so many important tasks, among them the celebrations commemorating the Bicentennial and the formalization of the agreement on Latin American and Caribbean unity – much more than the physical suffering that radical surgery would imply, signified a test, as he put it, that he compared to the difficult moments he had to face in his lifetime as an unyielding combatant.
Along with him, the team of persons caring for him and who he described as sublime fought a magnificent battle which I have witnessed.
With no hesitation whatsoever, I state that the results are impressive and that the patient fought a decisive battle that shall lead him and Venezuela along with him, to a great victory.
One has to make sure that his declaration is communicated word for word in every language, but especially it should be translated and subtitled into English [set out below]; this is a language that can be understood on this Tower of Babel into which imperialism has transformed the world.
Now the external and internal enemies of Hugo Chávez are at the mercy of his words and his initiatives. Without a doubt there shall be surprises in store for them. Let us wish him our most steadfast support and trust. The lies of the empire and the treason of the quislings shall be defeated. Today there are millions of militant and aware Venezuelans who shall never be made to submit to the oligarchy and the empire.
Fidel Castro Ruz
Tuesday 12 July 2011
Sunday 13 March 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL- TWO EARTHQUAKES
Two Earthquakes
A strong 8.9 on the scale earthquake shook Japan today. The most worrying is that early news reports were talking about thousands dead and missing, figures really unheard of in a developed country where all constructions are quake-proof. They were even talking about a nuclear reactor that was out of control. Hours later, it was informed that four nuclear plants close to the most affected area were under control. There was also information about a tsunami 10 metres high that had the entire Pacific area on tidal wave alert.
The earthquake originated at a depth of 24.4 kilometres and 100 kilometres from the coast. Had it happened at a lesser depth and distance, the consequences would have been more serious.
There was a shift in the earth’s axis. It was the third phenomenon of great intensity occurring in less than two years: Haiti, Chile and Japan. Man cannot be blamed for such tragedies. Every country, surely, will do everything it can to help the hard-working people who were the first to suffer an unnecessary and inhuman nuclear attack.
According to Spain’s Official College of Geologists, the energy released by the earthquake is equivalent to 200 million tons of dynamite.
The most recent information, from AFP, states that the Japanese electric Company, Tokyo Electric Power, informed that according to government instructions, they had released some of the vapour containing radioactive substances…
“We are following the situation. Until the present there is no problem…”
“They also indicated that there were breakdowns related to the cooling of three reactors in a second nearby plant, Fukushima 2.
“The government ordered the evacuation of surrounding areas for a radius of 10 km in the case of the first plant and 3 km in the case of the second one.”
Another earthquake, a political one and potentially more serious, is the one taking place around Libya, and it affects every country, one way or the other.
The drama that country is living through is in full swing and its outcome is still uncertain.
A great hubbub broke out yesterday in the US Senate when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, stated before the Armed Services Committee that he didn’t believe Gaddafi had any intention of leaving; because of evidence at their disposal, it seems that he is “in this for the long haul”.
He added that Gaddafi has two brigades that “are very loyal”.
He pointed out that the air attacks carried out by the army loyal to Gaddafi “mainly” caused damages on buildings and infrastructure rather than civilian casualties.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, at the same hearing before the Senate, said that it seemed Gaddafi had staying power unless some other dynamic changes at this time.
“The opportunity the rebels had at the start of the popular uprising has ‘begun to change’, he assured.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Gaddafi and the Libyan leaders committed an error in trusting Bush and NATO, as can be inferred from what I wrote in my Reflection on the 9th.
Nor do I doubt the intentions of the United States and NATO to intervene militarily in Libya and abort the revolutionary wave shaking the Arab world.
Countries that are opposing NATO intervention and defending the idea of a political solution without foreign intervention harbour the conviction that the Libyan patriots shall defend their Homeland until their dying breath.
Fidel Castro Ruz
March 11, 2011
10:12 p.m.
Tags: NATO
A strong 8.9 on the scale earthquake shook Japan today. The most worrying is that early news reports were talking about thousands dead and missing, figures really unheard of in a developed country where all constructions are quake-proof. They were even talking about a nuclear reactor that was out of control. Hours later, it was informed that four nuclear plants close to the most affected area were under control. There was also information about a tsunami 10 metres high that had the entire Pacific area on tidal wave alert.
The earthquake originated at a depth of 24.4 kilometres and 100 kilometres from the coast. Had it happened at a lesser depth and distance, the consequences would have been more serious.
There was a shift in the earth’s axis. It was the third phenomenon of great intensity occurring in less than two years: Haiti, Chile and Japan. Man cannot be blamed for such tragedies. Every country, surely, will do everything it can to help the hard-working people who were the first to suffer an unnecessary and inhuman nuclear attack.
According to Spain’s Official College of Geologists, the energy released by the earthquake is equivalent to 200 million tons of dynamite.
The most recent information, from AFP, states that the Japanese electric Company, Tokyo Electric Power, informed that according to government instructions, they had released some of the vapour containing radioactive substances…
“We are following the situation. Until the present there is no problem…”
“They also indicated that there were breakdowns related to the cooling of three reactors in a second nearby plant, Fukushima 2.
“The government ordered the evacuation of surrounding areas for a radius of 10 km in the case of the first plant and 3 km in the case of the second one.”
Another earthquake, a political one and potentially more serious, is the one taking place around Libya, and it affects every country, one way or the other.
The drama that country is living through is in full swing and its outcome is still uncertain.
A great hubbub broke out yesterday in the US Senate when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, stated before the Armed Services Committee that he didn’t believe Gaddafi had any intention of leaving; because of evidence at their disposal, it seems that he is “in this for the long haul”.
He added that Gaddafi has two brigades that “are very loyal”.
He pointed out that the air attacks carried out by the army loyal to Gaddafi “mainly” caused damages on buildings and infrastructure rather than civilian casualties.
Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, at the same hearing before the Senate, said that it seemed Gaddafi had staying power unless some other dynamic changes at this time.
“The opportunity the rebels had at the start of the popular uprising has ‘begun to change’, he assured.
I have no doubt whatsoever that Gaddafi and the Libyan leaders committed an error in trusting Bush and NATO, as can be inferred from what I wrote in my Reflection on the 9th.
Nor do I doubt the intentions of the United States and NATO to intervene militarily in Libya and abort the revolutionary wave shaking the Arab world.
Countries that are opposing NATO intervention and defending the idea of a political solution without foreign intervention harbour the conviction that the Libyan patriots shall defend their Homeland until their dying breath.
Fidel Castro Ruz
March 11, 2011
10:12 p.m.
Tags: NATO
Friday 11 March 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
Havana. March 10, 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
NATO, war, lies and business
(Taken from CubaDebate)
AS some people know, in September of 1969, Muammar al-Gaddafi, a Bedouin Arab soldier of unusual character and inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, promoted within the heart of the Armed Forces a movement which overthrew King Idris I of Libya, almost a desert country in its totality, with a sparse population, located to the north of Africa between Tunisia and Egypt.
Libya’s significant and valuable energy resources were progressively being discovered.
Born into the heart of a Bedouin community, nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist. It is known that a paternal grandfather died fighting against the Italian invaders when Libya was invaded by the latter in 1911. The colonial regime and fascism changed everyone’s lives. It is likewise said that his father was imprisoned before earning his daily bread as an industrial worker.
Even Gaddafi’s adversaries confirm that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high school for his anti-monarchical activities. He managed to enroll in another school and later to graduate in law at the University of Benghazi, aged 21. He then entered the Benghazi Military College, where he created the Union of Free Officers Movement, subsequently completing his studies in a British military academy.
These antecedents explain the notable influence that he later exercised in Libya and over other political leaders, whether or not they are now for or against Gaddafi.
He initiated his political life with unquestionably revolutionary acts.
In March 1970, in the wake of mass nationalist protests, he achieved the evacuation of British soldiers from the country and, in June, the United States vacated the large airbase close to Tripoli, which was handed over to military instructors from Egypt, a country allied with Libya.
In 1970, a number of Western oil companies and banking societies with the participation of foreign capital were affected by the Revolution. At the end of 1971, the same fate befell the famous British Petroleum. In the agricultural sector all Italian assets were confiscated, and the colonialists and their descendants were expelled from Libya.
State intervention was directed toward the control of the large companies. Production in that country grew to become one of the highest in the Arab world. Gambling was prohibited, as was alcohol consumption. The legal status of women, traditionally limited, was elevated.
The Libyan leader became immersed in extremist theories as much opposed to communism as to capitalism. It was a stage in which Gaddafi devoted himself to theorizing, which would be meaningless to include in this analysis, except to note that the first article of the Constitutional Proclamation of 1969, established the "Socialist" nature of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
What I wish to emphasize is that the United States and its NATO allies were never interested in human rights.
The pandemonium that occurred in the Security Council, in the meeting of the Human Rights Council based in Geneva, and in the UN General Assembly in New York, was pure theater.
I can perfectly comprehend the reactions of political leaders embroiled in so many contradictions and sterile debates, given the intrigue of interests and problems which they have to address.
All of us are well aware that status as a permanent member, veto power, the possession of nuclear weapons and more than a few institutions, are sources of privilege and self-interest imposed on humanity by force. One can be in agreement with many of them or not, but never accept them as just or ethical measures.
The empire is now attempting to turn events around to what Gaddafi has done or not done, because it needs to militarily intervene in Libya and deliver a blow to the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world. Through now not a word was said, silence was maintained and business was conducted.
Whether a latent Libyan rebellion was promoted by yankee intelligence agencies or by the errors of Gaddafi himself, it is important that the peoples do not let themselves be deceived, given that, very soon, world opinion will have enough elements to know what to believe.
In my opinion, and as I have expressed since the outset, the plans of the bellicose NATO had to be condemned.
Libya, like many Third World countries, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and other international organizations, via which relations are established independently of economic and social system.
Briefly: the Revolution in Cuba, inspired by Marxist-Leninist and Martí principles, had triumphed in 1959 at 90 miles from the United States, which imposed the Platt Amendment on us and was the proprietor of our country’s economy.
Almost immediately, the empire promoted against our people dirty warfare, counterrevolutionary gangs, the criminal economic blockade and the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, guarded by an aircraft carrier and its marines ready to disembark if the mercenary force secured certain objectives.
Barely a year and a half later, it threatened us with the power of its nuclear arsenal. A war of that nature was about to break out.
All the Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico, took part in the criminal blockade which is still in place, without our country ever surrendering. It is important to recall that for those lacking historical memory.
In January 1986, putting forward the idea that Libya was behind so-called revolutionary terrorism, Reagan ordered the severing of economic and commercial relations with that country.
In March, an aircraft carrier force in the Gulf of Sirte, within what Libya considered its national waters, unleashed attacks which destroyed a number of naval units equipped with rocket launchers and coastal radar systems which that country had acquired in the USSR.
On April 5, a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by U.S. soldiers was the target of a plastic explosives attack, in which three people died, two of them U.S. soldiers, and many people were injured.
Reagan accused Gaddafi and ordered the Air Force to respond. Three squadrons took off from 6th Fleet aircraft carriers and bases in the United Kingdom, and attacked with missiles and bombs seven military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Some 40 people died, 15 of them civilians. Warned in advance of the bombardments, Gaddafi gathered together his family and was leaving his residence located in the Bab Al Aziziya military complex south of the capital. The evacuation had not been completed when a missile directly hit the residence, his daughter Hanna died and another two of his children were wounded. That act was widely rejected; the UN General Assembly passed a resolution of condemnation given what was a violation of the UN Charter and international law. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League and the OAU did likewise in energetic terms.
On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am Boeing 747 flying from London to New York disintegrated in full flight when a bomb exploded aboard, the wreckage fell on the locality of Lockerbie and the tragedy cost the lives of 270 people of 21 nationalities.
Initially, the United States suspected Iran, in reprisal for the death of 290 people when an Airbus belonging to its state line was brought down. According to the yankees, investigations implicated two Libyan intelligence agents. Similar accusations against Libya were made in the case of the French airline on the Brazzaville-N’Djamena-Paris route, implicating Libyan officials whom Gaddafi refused to extradite for acts that he categorically denied.
A sinister legend was fabricated against him, with the participation of Reagan and Bush Senior.
From 1975 to the final stage of the Regan administration, Cuba dedicated itself to its internationalist duties in Angola and other African nations. We were aware of the conflicts developing in Libya or around her via readings and testimonies from people closely linked to that country and the Arab world, as well as impressions we retained from many figures in different countries with whom we had contact during those years.
Many known African leaders with whom Gaddafi maintained close relations made efforts to find a solution to the tense relations between Libya and the United Kingdom.
The Security Council had imposed sanctions on Libya which began to be overcome when Gaddafi agreed to the trial, under specific conditions, of the two men accused of the plane sabotage over Scotland.
Libyan delegations began to be invited to inter-European meetings. In July 1999 London initiated the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Libya after some additional concessions.
In September of that year, European Union ministers agreed to revoke the restrictive trade measures imposed in 1992.
On December 2, Massimo D’Alema, the Italian prime minister, made the first visit to Libya by a European head of government.
With the disappearance of the USSR and the European socialist bloc, Gaddafi decided to accept the demands of the United States and NATO.
When I visited Libya in May 2001, he showed me the ruins left by the treacherous attack during which Reagan murdered his daughter and almost exterminated his entire family.
In early 2002, the State Department announced that diplomatic talks between the United States and Libya were underway.
In May, Libya was once again included on the list of states sponsoring terrorism although, in January, President George W. Bush had not mentioned the African country in his famous speech on members of the "axis of evil."
At the beginning of 2003, in accordance with the economic agreement on compensation reached between Libya and the plaintiffs, the United Kingdom and France, the UN Security Council lifted its 1992 sanctions against Libya.
Before the end of 2003, Bush and Tony Blair reported an agreement with Libya, which had submitted documentation to British and U.S. intelligence experts about conventional weapons programs and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers. Officials from both countries had already visited a number of installations. It was the result of many months of conversation between Tripoli and Washington, as Bush himself revealed.
Gaddafi kept his disarmament promises. Within five months Libya handed over the five units of Scud-C missiles with a range of 800 km and hundreds of Scud-B which have a range exceeding the 300 kilometers of defensive short-range missiles.
As of October, 2002, a marathon of visits to Tripoli began: Berlusconi, in October 2002; José María Aznar, in September 2003; Berlusconi again in February, August and October of 2004; Blair, in March of 2004; the German Schröeder, in October of that year; Jacques Chirac, November 2004. Everybody happy. Money talks.
Gaddafi toured Europe triumphantly. He was received in Brussels in April of 2004 by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission; in August of that year the Libyan leader invited Bush to visit his country; Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Conoco Philips established renewed oil extraction operations through joint ventures.
In May of 2006, the United States announced the removal of Libya from its list of nations harboring terrorists and established full diplomatic relations.
In 2006 and 2007, France and the U.S. signed accords for cooperation in nuclear development for peaceful ends; in May, 2007, Blair returned to visit Gaddafi in Sirte. British Petroleum signed a contract it described as "enormously important," for the exploration of gas fields.
In December of 2007, Gaddafi made two trips to France to sign military and civilian equipment contracts for 10 billion euros, and to Spain where he met with President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Contracts worth millions were signed with important NATO countries.
What has now brought on the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. and other NATO members' embassies?
It all seems extremely strange.
George W. Bush, father of the stupid anti-terrorist war, said on September 20, 2011 to west Point cadets, "Our security will require … the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. … to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.
"We must root out terrorist cells in 60 countries or more … with our friends and allies, we have to stop their proliferation and confront regimes which harbor or support terrorism, as is required in each case."
What might Obama think of that speech?
What sanctions will the Security Council impose on those who have killed more than a million civilians in Iraq and those who everyday are murdering men, women and children in Afghanistan, where just recently the angry population took to the streets to protest the massacre of innocent children?
An AFP dispatch from Kabul, dated today, March 9, reveals, "Last year was the most lethal for civilians in the nine-year war between the Taliban and international forces in Afghanistan, with almost 2,800 deaths, 15% more than in 2009, a United Nations report indicated on Wednesday, underlining the human cost of the conflict for the population.
"… The Taliban insurrection has intensified and gained ground in these last few years, with guerrilla actions beyond its traditional bastions in the South and East.
"At exactly 2,777, the number of civilian deaths in 2010 increased by 15% as compared to 2009," the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan annual report indicated.
"On March 3, President Barack Obama expressed his profound condolences to the Afghan people for the nine children killed, as did U.S. General David Petraeus, commander in chief of the ISAF and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
"… The UNAMA report emphasizes that the number of civilian deaths is four times greater than the number of international forces soldiers killed in combat during the same year.
"So far, 2010 has been the most deadly for foreign soldiers in the nine years of war, with 711 dead, confirming that the Taliban's guerilla war has intensified despite the deployment of 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last year."
Over the course of 10 days, in Geneva and in the United Nations, more than 150 speeches were delivered about violations of human rights, which were repeated million of times on television, radio, Internet and in the written press.
Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, in his remarks March 1, 2011 before Foreign Relations ministers in Geneva, said:
"Humanity's conscience is repulsed by the deaths of innocent people under any circumstances, anyplace. Cuba fully shares the worldwide concern for the loss of civilian lives in Libya and hopes that its people are able to reach a peaceful and sovereign solution to the civil war occurring there, with no foreign interference, and guarantee the integrity of that nation."
Some of the final paragraphs of his speech were scathing.
"If the essential human right is the right to life, will the Council be ready to suspend the membership of states that unleash war?
"Will it suspend states which finance and supply military aid utilized by recipient states for mass, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights and attacks on the civilian population, like those taking place in Palestine?
"Will it apply measures to powerful countries which are perpetuating extra-judicial executions in the territory of other states with the use of high technology, such as smart bombs and drone aircraft?
"What will happen with states which accept secret illegal prisons in their territories, facilitate the transit of secret flights with kidnapped persons aboard, or participate in acts of torture?
We fully share the valiant position of the Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).
We are against the internal war in Libya, in favor of immediate peace and respect for the lives and rights of all citizens, without foreign intervention, which would only serve to prolong the conflict and NATO interests.
Fidel Castro Ruz
March 9, 2011
9:35 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
NATO, war, lies and business
(Taken from CubaDebate)
AS some people know, in September of 1969, Muammar al-Gaddafi, a Bedouin Arab soldier of unusual character and inspired by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser, promoted within the heart of the Armed Forces a movement which overthrew King Idris I of Libya, almost a desert country in its totality, with a sparse population, located to the north of Africa between Tunisia and Egypt.
Libya’s significant and valuable energy resources were progressively being discovered.
Born into the heart of a Bedouin community, nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist. It is known that a paternal grandfather died fighting against the Italian invaders when Libya was invaded by the latter in 1911. The colonial regime and fascism changed everyone’s lives. It is likewise said that his father was imprisoned before earning his daily bread as an industrial worker.
Even Gaddafi’s adversaries confirm that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high school for his anti-monarchical activities. He managed to enroll in another school and later to graduate in law at the University of Benghazi, aged 21. He then entered the Benghazi Military College, where he created the Union of Free Officers Movement, subsequently completing his studies in a British military academy.
These antecedents explain the notable influence that he later exercised in Libya and over other political leaders, whether or not they are now for or against Gaddafi.
He initiated his political life with unquestionably revolutionary acts.
In March 1970, in the wake of mass nationalist protests, he achieved the evacuation of British soldiers from the country and, in June, the United States vacated the large airbase close to Tripoli, which was handed over to military instructors from Egypt, a country allied with Libya.
In 1970, a number of Western oil companies and banking societies with the participation of foreign capital were affected by the Revolution. At the end of 1971, the same fate befell the famous British Petroleum. In the agricultural sector all Italian assets were confiscated, and the colonialists and their descendants were expelled from Libya.
State intervention was directed toward the control of the large companies. Production in that country grew to become one of the highest in the Arab world. Gambling was prohibited, as was alcohol consumption. The legal status of women, traditionally limited, was elevated.
The Libyan leader became immersed in extremist theories as much opposed to communism as to capitalism. It was a stage in which Gaddafi devoted himself to theorizing, which would be meaningless to include in this analysis, except to note that the first article of the Constitutional Proclamation of 1969, established the "Socialist" nature of the Libyan Arab Jamahiriya.
What I wish to emphasize is that the United States and its NATO allies were never interested in human rights.
The pandemonium that occurred in the Security Council, in the meeting of the Human Rights Council based in Geneva, and in the UN General Assembly in New York, was pure theater.
I can perfectly comprehend the reactions of political leaders embroiled in so many contradictions and sterile debates, given the intrigue of interests and problems which they have to address.
All of us are well aware that status as a permanent member, veto power, the possession of nuclear weapons and more than a few institutions, are sources of privilege and self-interest imposed on humanity by force. One can be in agreement with many of them or not, but never accept them as just or ethical measures.
The empire is now attempting to turn events around to what Gaddafi has done or not done, because it needs to militarily intervene in Libya and deliver a blow to the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world. Through now not a word was said, silence was maintained and business was conducted.
Whether a latent Libyan rebellion was promoted by yankee intelligence agencies or by the errors of Gaddafi himself, it is important that the peoples do not let themselves be deceived, given that, very soon, world opinion will have enough elements to know what to believe.
In my opinion, and as I have expressed since the outset, the plans of the bellicose NATO had to be condemned.
Libya, like many Third World countries, is a member of the Non-Aligned Movement, the Group of 77 and other international organizations, via which relations are established independently of economic and social system.
Briefly: the Revolution in Cuba, inspired by Marxist-Leninist and Martí principles, had triumphed in 1959 at 90 miles from the United States, which imposed the Platt Amendment on us and was the proprietor of our country’s economy.
Almost immediately, the empire promoted against our people dirty warfare, counterrevolutionary gangs, the criminal economic blockade and the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, guarded by an aircraft carrier and its marines ready to disembark if the mercenary force secured certain objectives.
Barely a year and a half later, it threatened us with the power of its nuclear arsenal. A war of that nature was about to break out.
All the Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico, took part in the criminal blockade which is still in place, without our country ever surrendering. It is important to recall that for those lacking historical memory.
In January 1986, putting forward the idea that Libya was behind so-called revolutionary terrorism, Reagan ordered the severing of economic and commercial relations with that country.
In March, an aircraft carrier force in the Gulf of Sirte, within what Libya considered its national waters, unleashed attacks which destroyed a number of naval units equipped with rocket launchers and coastal radar systems which that country had acquired in the USSR.
On April 5, a discotheque in West Berlin frequented by U.S. soldiers was the target of a plastic explosives attack, in which three people died, two of them U.S. soldiers, and many people were injured.
Reagan accused Gaddafi and ordered the Air Force to respond. Three squadrons took off from 6th Fleet aircraft carriers and bases in the United Kingdom, and attacked with missiles and bombs seven military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi. Some 40 people died, 15 of them civilians. Warned in advance of the bombardments, Gaddafi gathered together his family and was leaving his residence located in the Bab Al Aziziya military complex south of the capital. The evacuation had not been completed when a missile directly hit the residence, his daughter Hanna died and another two of his children were wounded. That act was widely rejected; the UN General Assembly passed a resolution of condemnation given what was a violation of the UN Charter and international law. The Non-Aligned Movement, the Arab League and the OAU did likewise in energetic terms.
On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am Boeing 747 flying from London to New York disintegrated in full flight when a bomb exploded aboard, the wreckage fell on the locality of Lockerbie and the tragedy cost the lives of 270 people of 21 nationalities.
Initially, the United States suspected Iran, in reprisal for the death of 290 people when an Airbus belonging to its state line was brought down. According to the yankees, investigations implicated two Libyan intelligence agents. Similar accusations against Libya were made in the case of the French airline on the Brazzaville-N’Djamena-Paris route, implicating Libyan officials whom Gaddafi refused to extradite for acts that he categorically denied.
A sinister legend was fabricated against him, with the participation of Reagan and Bush Senior.
From 1975 to the final stage of the Regan administration, Cuba dedicated itself to its internationalist duties in Angola and other African nations. We were aware of the conflicts developing in Libya or around her via readings and testimonies from people closely linked to that country and the Arab world, as well as impressions we retained from many figures in different countries with whom we had contact during those years.
Many known African leaders with whom Gaddafi maintained close relations made efforts to find a solution to the tense relations between Libya and the United Kingdom.
The Security Council had imposed sanctions on Libya which began to be overcome when Gaddafi agreed to the trial, under specific conditions, of the two men accused of the plane sabotage over Scotland.
Libyan delegations began to be invited to inter-European meetings. In July 1999 London initiated the reestablishment of full diplomatic relations with Libya after some additional concessions.
In September of that year, European Union ministers agreed to revoke the restrictive trade measures imposed in 1992.
On December 2, Massimo D’Alema, the Italian prime minister, made the first visit to Libya by a European head of government.
With the disappearance of the USSR and the European socialist bloc, Gaddafi decided to accept the demands of the United States and NATO.
When I visited Libya in May 2001, he showed me the ruins left by the treacherous attack during which Reagan murdered his daughter and almost exterminated his entire family.
In early 2002, the State Department announced that diplomatic talks between the United States and Libya were underway.
In May, Libya was once again included on the list of states sponsoring terrorism although, in January, President George W. Bush had not mentioned the African country in his famous speech on members of the "axis of evil."
At the beginning of 2003, in accordance with the economic agreement on compensation reached between Libya and the plaintiffs, the United Kingdom and France, the UN Security Council lifted its 1992 sanctions against Libya.
Before the end of 2003, Bush and Tony Blair reported an agreement with Libya, which had submitted documentation to British and U.S. intelligence experts about conventional weapons programs and ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometers. Officials from both countries had already visited a number of installations. It was the result of many months of conversation between Tripoli and Washington, as Bush himself revealed.
Gaddafi kept his disarmament promises. Within five months Libya handed over the five units of Scud-C missiles with a range of 800 km and hundreds of Scud-B which have a range exceeding the 300 kilometers of defensive short-range missiles.
As of October, 2002, a marathon of visits to Tripoli began: Berlusconi, in October 2002; José María Aznar, in September 2003; Berlusconi again in February, August and October of 2004; Blair, in March of 2004; the German Schröeder, in October of that year; Jacques Chirac, November 2004. Everybody happy. Money talks.
Gaddafi toured Europe triumphantly. He was received in Brussels in April of 2004 by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission; in August of that year the Libyan leader invited Bush to visit his country; Exxon Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and Conoco Philips established renewed oil extraction operations through joint ventures.
In May of 2006, the United States announced the removal of Libya from its list of nations harboring terrorists and established full diplomatic relations.
In 2006 and 2007, France and the U.S. signed accords for cooperation in nuclear development for peaceful ends; in May, 2007, Blair returned to visit Gaddafi in Sirte. British Petroleum signed a contract it described as "enormously important," for the exploration of gas fields.
In December of 2007, Gaddafi made two trips to France to sign military and civilian equipment contracts for 10 billion euros, and to Spain where he met with President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Contracts worth millions were signed with important NATO countries.
What has now brought on the precipitous withdrawal of U.S. and other NATO members' embassies?
It all seems extremely strange.
George W. Bush, father of the stupid anti-terrorist war, said on September 20, 2011 to west Point cadets, "Our security will require … the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment's notice in any dark corner of the world. … to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and to defend our lives.
"We must root out terrorist cells in 60 countries or more … with our friends and allies, we have to stop their proliferation and confront regimes which harbor or support terrorism, as is required in each case."
What might Obama think of that speech?
What sanctions will the Security Council impose on those who have killed more than a million civilians in Iraq and those who everyday are murdering men, women and children in Afghanistan, where just recently the angry population took to the streets to protest the massacre of innocent children?
An AFP dispatch from Kabul, dated today, March 9, reveals, "Last year was the most lethal for civilians in the nine-year war between the Taliban and international forces in Afghanistan, with almost 2,800 deaths, 15% more than in 2009, a United Nations report indicated on Wednesday, underlining the human cost of the conflict for the population.
"… The Taliban insurrection has intensified and gained ground in these last few years, with guerrilla actions beyond its traditional bastions in the South and East.
"At exactly 2,777, the number of civilian deaths in 2010 increased by 15% as compared to 2009," the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan annual report indicated.
"On March 3, President Barack Obama expressed his profound condolences to the Afghan people for the nine children killed, as did U.S. General David Petraeus, commander in chief of the ISAF and Secretary of Defense Robert Gates.
"… The UNAMA report emphasizes that the number of civilian deaths is four times greater than the number of international forces soldiers killed in combat during the same year.
"So far, 2010 has been the most deadly for foreign soldiers in the nine years of war, with 711 dead, confirming that the Taliban's guerilla war has intensified despite the deployment of 30,000 U.S. reinforcements last year."
Over the course of 10 days, in Geneva and in the United Nations, more than 150 speeches were delivered about violations of human rights, which were repeated million of times on television, radio, Internet and in the written press.
Cuba's Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez, in his remarks March 1, 2011 before Foreign Relations ministers in Geneva, said:
"Humanity's conscience is repulsed by the deaths of innocent people under any circumstances, anyplace. Cuba fully shares the worldwide concern for the loss of civilian lives in Libya and hopes that its people are able to reach a peaceful and sovereign solution to the civil war occurring there, with no foreign interference, and guarantee the integrity of that nation."
Some of the final paragraphs of his speech were scathing.
"If the essential human right is the right to life, will the Council be ready to suspend the membership of states that unleash war?
"Will it suspend states which finance and supply military aid utilized by recipient states for mass, flagrant and systematic violations of human rights and attacks on the civilian population, like those taking place in Palestine?
"Will it apply measures to powerful countries which are perpetuating extra-judicial executions in the territory of other states with the use of high technology, such as smart bombs and drone aircraft?
"What will happen with states which accept secret illegal prisons in their territories, facilitate the transit of secret flights with kidnapped persons aboard, or participate in acts of torture?
We fully share the valiant position of the Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez and the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA).
We are against the internal war in Libya, in favor of immediate peace and respect for the lives and rights of all citizens, without foreign intervention, which would only serve to prolong the conflict and NATO interests.
Fidel Castro Ruz
March 9, 2011
9:35 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
Thursday 3 March 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
The Cynical Dance Macabre
The policy of plunder imposed by the United States and their NATO allies in the Middle East has gone into a crisis. It has inevitably unraveled with the high cost of grain, the effects of which can be felt more forcefully in the Arab countries where, in spite of their huge resources of oil, the shortage of water, areas covered by desert and the generalized poverty of the people contrast with the enormous resources coming from the oil possessed by the privileged sectors.
While food prices triple, real estate fortunes and the treasures of the aristocratic minority reach millions of millions of dollars.
The Arab world, mainly Muslim in its culture and beliefs, has seen itself additionally humiliated by the imposition of blood and fire by a State that was not capable of fulfilling the basic obligations that were part of their origin, from the colonial order existing up to the end of WW II, by virtue of which the victorious powers created the United Nations Organization and imposed world trade and economy.
Thanks to the treason committed by Anwar El-Sadat at Camp David, the Palestinian State has not been able to exist, despite the UN treaties of November 1947, and Israel became a strong nuclear power, an ally of the United States and NATO.
The US Military Industrial Complex supplied Israel with tens of billions of dollars every year as well as to the very Arab States that were submitted and being humiliated by Israel.
The genie has escaped from the bottle and NATO doesn´t know how to control it.
They are going to attempt to wrest the most benefits from the regrettable events in Libya. Nobody can know at this moment what is happening over there. All the figures and versions, even the most implausible ones, have been spread by the empire via the mass media, sowing chaos and disinformation.
It is obvious that inside Libya a civil war is brewing. Why and how did this happen? Who will pay the consequences? Reuters Agency, echoing the opinion of the well-known Nomura Bank of Japan, stated that oil prices could go beyond any limits:
“‘If Libya and Algeria suspend oil production, prices could reach a maximum of more than 220 dollars a barrel and OPEC´s inactive capacity would be reduced to 2.1 million barrels per day, similar to levels seen during the Gulf War and when values touched 147 dollars a barrel in 2008’, the bank asserted in an article.”
Who could pay that price these days? What would be the consequences in the midst of the food crisis? The main NATO leaders are all worked up. British Prime Minister David Cameron, ANSA informed, “…admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the western nations made a mistake in backing non-democratic governments in the Arab world.” One has to congratulate him on his frankness.
His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy stated: “The extended brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is disgusting”.
Italian Chancellor Franco Frattini stated as “‘believable’ the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli [...] ‘the tragic numbers shall be a bloodbath’.”
Hillary Clinton stated the following: “…the ‘bloodbath’ is ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘it has to stop’…”
Ban Ki-moon spoke: “‘The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable’.”
“…‘the Security Council will act according to whatever the international community decides’.” “‘We are considering a series of options’.”
What Ban Ki-moon is really hoping is that Obama pronounces the last word.
The president of the United States spoke this Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would be leaving for Europe in order to agree with their NATO allies on the measures to be taken. On his face once could note the opportunity to spar with John McCain, the far-right-wing Republican senator, pro-Israel Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut and the leaders of the Tea Party, in order to ensure the Democratic Party demands.
The empire´s mass media has prepared the terrain for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya; besides, with that, Europe would be guaranteed almost two million barrels of light oil per day, unless before that events would put an end to the leadership or the life of Gaddafi.
Anyway, Obama´s role is rather complicated. What will the reaction of the Arab and Muslim world be if blood should flow in abundance in that country as a result of that exploit? Would NATO intervention in Libya stem the revolutionary tidal wave surging in Egypt?
In Iraq, the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was spilt when the country was invaded under false pretexts. Mission accomplished!: proclaimed George W. Bush.
Nobody in the world would ever agree with the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. And I wonder: will the US and NATO apply that principle on the defenseless civilians that the unmanned Yankee planes and the soldiers of that organization kill every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It is a cynical dance macabre.
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 23, 2011
7:42 p.m.
The policy of plunder imposed by the United States and their NATO allies in the Middle East has gone into a crisis. It has inevitably unraveled with the high cost of grain, the effects of which can be felt more forcefully in the Arab countries where, in spite of their huge resources of oil, the shortage of water, areas covered by desert and the generalized poverty of the people contrast with the enormous resources coming from the oil possessed by the privileged sectors.
While food prices triple, real estate fortunes and the treasures of the aristocratic minority reach millions of millions of dollars.
The Arab world, mainly Muslim in its culture and beliefs, has seen itself additionally humiliated by the imposition of blood and fire by a State that was not capable of fulfilling the basic obligations that were part of their origin, from the colonial order existing up to the end of WW II, by virtue of which the victorious powers created the United Nations Organization and imposed world trade and economy.
Thanks to the treason committed by Anwar El-Sadat at Camp David, the Palestinian State has not been able to exist, despite the UN treaties of November 1947, and Israel became a strong nuclear power, an ally of the United States and NATO.
The US Military Industrial Complex supplied Israel with tens of billions of dollars every year as well as to the very Arab States that were submitted and being humiliated by Israel.
The genie has escaped from the bottle and NATO doesn´t know how to control it.
They are going to attempt to wrest the most benefits from the regrettable events in Libya. Nobody can know at this moment what is happening over there. All the figures and versions, even the most implausible ones, have been spread by the empire via the mass media, sowing chaos and disinformation.
It is obvious that inside Libya a civil war is brewing. Why and how did this happen? Who will pay the consequences? Reuters Agency, echoing the opinion of the well-known Nomura Bank of Japan, stated that oil prices could go beyond any limits:
“‘If Libya and Algeria suspend oil production, prices could reach a maximum of more than 220 dollars a barrel and OPEC´s inactive capacity would be reduced to 2.1 million barrels per day, similar to levels seen during the Gulf War and when values touched 147 dollars a barrel in 2008’, the bank asserted in an article.”
Who could pay that price these days? What would be the consequences in the midst of the food crisis? The main NATO leaders are all worked up. British Prime Minister David Cameron, ANSA informed, “…admitted in a speech in Kuwait that the western nations made a mistake in backing non-democratic governments in the Arab world.” One has to congratulate him on his frankness.
His French colleague Nicolas Sarkozy stated: “The extended brutal and bloody repression of the Libyan civilian population is disgusting”.
Italian Chancellor Franco Frattini stated as “‘believable’ the figure of one thousand dead in Tripoli [...] ‘the tragic numbers shall be a bloodbath’.”
Hillary Clinton stated the following: “…the ‘bloodbath’ is ‘completely unacceptable’ and ‘it has to stop’…”
Ban Ki-moon spoke: “‘The use of violence in the country is absolutely unacceptable’.”
“…‘the Security Council will act according to whatever the international community decides’.” “‘We are considering a series of options’.”
What Ban Ki-moon is really hoping is that Obama pronounces the last word.
The president of the United States spoke this Wednesday afternoon and stated that the Secretary of State would be leaving for Europe in order to agree with their NATO allies on the measures to be taken. On his face once could note the opportunity to spar with John McCain, the far-right-wing Republican senator, pro-Israel Senator Joseph Lieberman from Connecticut and the leaders of the Tea Party, in order to ensure the Democratic Party demands.
The empire´s mass media has prepared the terrain for action. There would be nothing strange about a military intervention in Libya; besides, with that, Europe would be guaranteed almost two million barrels of light oil per day, unless before that events would put an end to the leadership or the life of Gaddafi.
Anyway, Obama´s role is rather complicated. What will the reaction of the Arab and Muslim world be if blood should flow in abundance in that country as a result of that exploit? Would NATO intervention in Libya stem the revolutionary tidal wave surging in Egypt?
In Iraq, the innocent blood of more than a million Arab citizens was spilt when the country was invaded under false pretexts. Mission accomplished!: proclaimed George W. Bush.
Nobody in the world would ever agree with the deaths of defenseless civilians in Libya or anywhere else. And I wonder: will the US and NATO apply that principle on the defenseless civilians that the unmanned Yankee planes and the soldiers of that organization kill every day in Afghanistan and Pakistan?
It is a cynical dance macabre.
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 23, 2011
7:42 p.m.
Sunday 27 February 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
NATO’s plan is to occupy Libya
(Taken from CubaDebate)
OIL became the principal wealth in the hands of the large yankee transnationals; with that source of energy, they had at their disposal an instrument that considerably increased their political power in the world. It was their principal weapon when they decided to simply liquidate the Cuban Revolution as soon as the first, just and sovereign laws were enacted in our homeland: by depriving it of oil.
Current civilization was developed on the basis of this source of energy. Of the nations in this hemisphere it was Venezuela which paid the highest price. The United States made itself the owner of the vast oilfields which nature endowed upon that sister nation.
At the end of the last World War it began to extract large volumes from oilfields in Iran, as well as those of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Arab countries located around them. These came to be the principal suppliers. World consumption rose progressively to the fabulous figure of approximately 80 million barrels per day, including those pumped in U.S. territory, to which gas, hydro-electric and nuclear energy were subsequently added. Up until the beginning of the 20th century coal was the fundamental source of energy that made possible industrial development, before billions of automobiles and engines consuming combustible liquid were produced.
The squandering of oil and gas is associated with one of the greatest tragedies, totally unresolved, being endured by humanity: climate change.
When our Revolution arose, Algeria, Libya and Egypt were not as yet oil producers and a large part of the substantial reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were still to be discovered.
In December of 1951, Libya became the first African country to attain its independence after World War II, during which its territory was the scene of significant battles between German and British troops, bringing fame to Generals Erwin Rommel and Bernard. L. Montgomery.
Total desert covers 95% of its territory. Technology made it possible to find significant fields of excellent quality light oil, currently providing 800 billion barrels per day, and abundant natural gas deposits. Such wealth allowed it to achieve a life expectancy rate of close to 75 years and the highest per capita income in Africa. Its harsh desert is located above an enormous lake of fossil water, equivalent to more than three times the land surface of Cuba, which has made it possible to construct a broad network of fresh water pipes which extends throughout the country.
Libya, which had one million inhabitants upon attaining its independence, now has a population of more than six million.
The Libyan Revolution took place in September 1969. Its principal leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who was inspired in his early youth by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that came about when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.
The inhabitants of that country have age-old warrior traditions. It is said that the ancient Libyans formed part of Hannibal’s army when he was at the point of liquidating Ancient Rome with the force that crossed the Alps.
One can be in agreement with Gaddafi or not. The world has been invaded with all kind of news, especially through the mass media. We shall have to wait the time needed to discover precisely how much is truth or lies, or a mix of the events, of all kinds, which, in the midst of chaos, have been taking place in Libya. What is absolutely evident to me is that the government of the United States is totally unconcerned about peace in Libya and will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade that rich country, possibly in a matter of hours or a few days.
Those who, with perfidious intentions, invented the lie that Gaddafi was headed for Venezuela, as they did yesterday afternoon Sunday, February 20, today received a worthy response from Nicolás Maduro, Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he stated textually that he was "voting for the Libyan people, in the exercise of their sovereignty, to find a peaceful solution to their difficulties which will preserve the integrity of the Libyan people and nation, without the interference of imperialism…"
For my part, I cannot imagine the Libyan leader abandoning the country, eluding the responsibilities attributed to him, whether or not this news is partly or totally false.
An honest person will always be against any injustice committed against any nation of the world, and the worst injustice, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is preparing to commit against the Libyan people.
The chief of that military organization is being urged to do so. This must be condemned!
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 21, 2011
10:14 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/21february-reflections.html
NATO’s plan is to occupy Libya
(Taken from CubaDebate)
OIL became the principal wealth in the hands of the large yankee transnationals; with that source of energy, they had at their disposal an instrument that considerably increased their political power in the world. It was their principal weapon when they decided to simply liquidate the Cuban Revolution as soon as the first, just and sovereign laws were enacted in our homeland: by depriving it of oil.
Current civilization was developed on the basis of this source of energy. Of the nations in this hemisphere it was Venezuela which paid the highest price. The United States made itself the owner of the vast oilfields which nature endowed upon that sister nation.
At the end of the last World War it began to extract large volumes from oilfields in Iran, as well as those of Saudi Arabia, Iraq and the Arab countries located around them. These came to be the principal suppliers. World consumption rose progressively to the fabulous figure of approximately 80 million barrels per day, including those pumped in U.S. territory, to which gas, hydro-electric and nuclear energy were subsequently added. Up until the beginning of the 20th century coal was the fundamental source of energy that made possible industrial development, before billions of automobiles and engines consuming combustible liquid were produced.
The squandering of oil and gas is associated with one of the greatest tragedies, totally unresolved, being endured by humanity: climate change.
When our Revolution arose, Algeria, Libya and Egypt were not as yet oil producers and a large part of the substantial reserves of Saudi Arabia, Iraq, Iran and the United Arab Emirates were still to be discovered.
In December of 1951, Libya became the first African country to attain its independence after World War II, during which its territory was the scene of significant battles between German and British troops, bringing fame to Generals Erwin Rommel and Bernard. L. Montgomery.
Total desert covers 95% of its territory. Technology made it possible to find significant fields of excellent quality light oil, currently providing 800 billion barrels per day, and abundant natural gas deposits. Such wealth allowed it to achieve a life expectancy rate of close to 75 years and the highest per capita income in Africa. Its harsh desert is located above an enormous lake of fossil water, equivalent to more than three times the land surface of Cuba, which has made it possible to construct a broad network of fresh water pipes which extends throughout the country.
Libya, which had one million inhabitants upon attaining its independence, now has a population of more than six million.
The Libyan Revolution took place in September 1969. Its principal leader was Muammar al-Gaddafi, a soldier of Bedouin origin who was inspired in his early youth by the ideas of the Egyptian leader Gamal Abdel Nasser. Without any doubt, many of his decisions are associated with the changes that came about when, as in Egypt, a weak and corrupt monarchy was overthrown in Libya.
The inhabitants of that country have age-old warrior traditions. It is said that the ancient Libyans formed part of Hannibal’s army when he was at the point of liquidating Ancient Rome with the force that crossed the Alps.
One can be in agreement with Gaddafi or not. The world has been invaded with all kind of news, especially through the mass media. We shall have to wait the time needed to discover precisely how much is truth or lies, or a mix of the events, of all kinds, which, in the midst of chaos, have been taking place in Libya. What is absolutely evident to me is that the government of the United States is totally unconcerned about peace in Libya and will not hesitate to give NATO the order to invade that rich country, possibly in a matter of hours or a few days.
Those who, with perfidious intentions, invented the lie that Gaddafi was headed for Venezuela, as they did yesterday afternoon Sunday, February 20, today received a worthy response from Nicolás Maduro, Venezuelan Minister of Foreign Affairs, when he stated textually that he was "voting for the Libyan people, in the exercise of their sovereignty, to find a peaceful solution to their difficulties which will preserve the integrity of the Libyan people and nation, without the interference of imperialism…"
For my part, I cannot imagine the Libyan leader abandoning the country, eluding the responsibilities attributed to him, whether or not this news is partly or totally false.
An honest person will always be against any injustice committed against any nation of the world, and the worst injustice, at this moment, would be to remain silent in the face of the crime that NATO is preparing to commit against the Libyan people.
The chief of that military organization is being urged to do so. This must be condemned!
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 21, 2011
10:14 p.m.
Translated by Granma International
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/reflections-i/21february-reflections.html
Tuesday 15 February 2011
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
The Revolutionary Rebellion in Egypt
In this Reflection article the leader of the Cuban Revolution writes that after 18 days of intense struggle, the Egyptian people achieved an important objective: overthrowing the main ally of the United States in the heart of the Arab world
Several days ago I said that Mubarak’s fate was sealed and that not even Obama was able to save him.
The world knows about what is happening in the Middle East. News spreads at mind-boggling speed. Politicians barely have enough time to read the dispatches arriving hour after hour. Everyone is aware of the importance of what is happening over there.
After 18 days of tough struggle, the Egyptian people achieved an important objective: overthrowing the main United States ally in the heart of the Arab nations. Mubarak was oppressing and pillaging his own people, he was an enemy to the Palestinians and an accomplice of Israel, the sixth nuclear power on the planet, associated with the war-mongering NATO group.
The Armed Forces of Egypt, under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, had thrown overboard a submissive King and created a Republic which, with the support of the USSR, defended its Homeland from the Franco-British and Israeli invasion of 1956 and preserved its ownership of the Suez Canal and the independence of its ancient nation.
For that reason, Egypt had a high degree of prestige in the Third World. Nasser was well-known as one of the most outstanding leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, in whose creation he took part along with other well-known leaders of Asia, Africa and Oceania who were struggling for national liberation and for the political and economic independence of the former colonies.
Egypt always enjoyed the support and respect of that international organization which brings together more than one hundred countries. At this precise time, that sister country is chairing NAM for a corresponding three-year period; and the support of many of its members for the struggle its people are engaged in today is a given.
What was the significance of the Camp David Agreements, and why do the heroic Palestinian people so arduously defend their most essential rights?
At Camp David ―with the mediation of then-President of the United States Jimmy Carter―, Egyptian leader Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin signed the famous treaties between Egypt and Israel.
It is said that secret talks went on for 12 days and on September 17th of 1978 they signed two important treaties: one in reference to peace between Egypt and Israel; the other having to do with the creation of the autonomous territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank where, el-Sadat was thinking – and Israel was aware of and sharing the idea –the capital of the State of Palestine would be, and whose existence, as well as that of the State of Israel, was agreed to by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, in the British protectorate of Palestine.
At the end of arduous and complicated talks, Israel agreed to withdraw their troops from Egyptian territory in the Sinai, even though it categorically rejected Palestinian participation in those peace negotiations.
As a product of the first treaty, in the term of one year, Israel reinstated Sinai territory occupied during one of the Arab-Israeli wars back to Egypt.
By virtue of the second agreement, both parties committed to negotiate the creation of the autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first of these included 5 640 square kilometres of territory and 2.1 million inhabitants; and the second one, 360 square kilometres and 1.5 million inhabitants.
The Arab countries were offended by that treaty where, in their opinion, Egypt had not defended with sufficient energy and resolution a Palestinian State whose right to exist had been the focal point of the battle fought for decades by the Arab States.
Their reactions reached such a level of indignation that many of them broke off their relations with Egypt. Thus, the United Nations Resolution of November 1947 was erased from the map. The autonomous body was never created and thus the Palestinians were deprived of their right to exist as an independent state; that is the origin of the never-ending tragedy they are living in and which should have been resolved more than three decades ago.
The Arab population of Palestine are victims of genocidal actions; their lands are confiscated or deprived of water supplies in the semi-desert areas and their homes are destroyed with heavy wrecking equipment. In the Gaza Strip a million and a half people are regularly being attacked with explosive projectiles, live phosphorus and booby-trap bombs. The Gaza Strip lands are being blockaded by land and by sea. Why are the Camp David agreements being talked about to such a degree while nobody mentions Palestine?
The United States is supplying the most modern and sophisticated weaponry to Israel to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Egypt, an Arab country, was turned into the second receiver of US weapons. To fight against whom? Another Arab country? Against the very Egyptian people?
When the population was asking for respect for their most basic rights and the resignation of a president whose policy consisted of exploiting and pillaging his own people, the repressive forces trained by the US did not hesitate for a second in shooting at them, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
When the Egyptian people were awaiting explanations from the government of their own country, the answers were coming from senior officials of the United States intelligence or government bodies, without any respect for Egyptian officials.
Could it possibly be that the leaders of the United States and their intelligence agencies knew nothing at all about the colossal thefts perpetrated by the Mubarak government?
Before the people were to protest en masse from Tahrir Square, neither the government officials nor the United States intelligence bodies were uttering one single word about the privileges and outrageous thefts of billions of dollars.
It would be a mistake to imagine that the people’s revolutionary movement in Egypt theoretically obeys a reaction to violations on their most elementary rights. Peoples do not defy repression and death, nor do they remain for nights on end protesting energetically, just because of merely formal matters. They do this when their legal and material rights are being mercilessly sacrificed to the insatiable demands of corrupt politicians and the national and international circles looting the country.
The poverty rate was now affecting the vast majority of a militant people, young and patriotic, with their dignity, culture and beliefs being trampled.
How was the unstoppable increase of food prices to be reconciled with the dozens of billions of dollars that were being attributed to President Mubarak and to the privileged sectors of the government and society?
It’s not enough now that we find out how much these come to; we must demand they be returned to the country.
Obama is being affected by the events in Egypt; he acts, or seems to act, as if he were the master of the planet. The Egyptian affair seems to be his business. He is constantly on the telephone, talking to the leaders of other countries.
The EFE Agency, for example, states: “...I spoke to the British Prime Minister David Cameron; King Abdala II of Jordan, and with the Turkish prime minister, the moderate Muslim Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
“...the president of the United States assessed the ‘historical changes’ that the Egyptians have been promoting and he reaffirmed his admiration for their efforts ...”.
The principal US news agency, AP, is broadcasting some reasoning that we should pay attention to:
“The US is asking Middle Eastern leaders leaning towards the West, who are friendly with Israel and willing to cooperate in the fight against Islamic extremism at the same time they are protecting human rights.”
“...Barack Obama has put forward a list of ideal requisites that are impossible to satisfy after the fall of two allies of Washington in Egypt and Tunisia in popular revolts that, according to experts, shall sweep the region.”
“There is no hope within this dream scenario and it’s very difficult for one to appear soon. Partially this is due to the fact that in the last 40 years, the US has sacrificed the noble ideals of human rights, that it so espouses, for stability, continuity and oil in one of the most volatile regions of the world.”
“‘Egypt will never be the same’, Obama said on Friday after praising the departure of Hosni Mubarak.”
“In the midst of their peaceful protests, Obama stated, the Egyptians ‘will change their country and the world’.
“Even as restlessness persists among the various Arab governments, the elite entrenched in Egypt and Tunisia has not shown signs of being willing to hand over the power or their vast economic influence that they have been holding.”
“The Obama government has insisted that the change should not be one of ‘personalities’. The US government set this position since President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunis in January, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned the Arab rulers in a speech in Qatar that without reform the foundations of their countries ‘would sink in the sand’.”
People don’t appear to be very docile in Tahrir Square.
Europe Press recounts:
“Thousands of demonstrators have arrived in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of mobilizations that caused the resignation of the president of the country, Hosni Mubarak, to reinforce those continuing in that location, despite the efforts of the military police to remove them, according to information from the BBC.
“The BBC correspondent stationed in the downtown square of Cairo has assured us that the army is appearing to be indecisive in the face of the arrival of new demonstrators ...”
“The ‘hard core’ [...] is located on one of the corners of the square. [...] they have decided to stay in Tahrir [...] in order to make certain all their claims are being met.”
Despite what is happening in Egypt, one of the most serious problems being faced by imperialism at this time is the lack of grain as I analyzed in my Reflection on January 19th.
The US uses an important part of the corn it grows and a large percentage of the soy harvest for the production of biofuels. As for Europe, it uses millions of hectares of land for that purpose.
On the other hand, as a consequence of the climate change originated basically by the developed and wealthy countries, a shortage of fresh water and foods compatible with population growth at a pace that would lead to 9 billion inhabitants in a mere 30 years is being created, without the United Nations and the most influential governments on the planet, after the disappointing meeting at Copenhagen and Cancun warning and informing the world about that situation.
We support the Egyptian people and their courageous struggle for their political rights and social justice.
We are not opposed to the people of Israel; we are against the genocide of the Palestinian people and we are for their right to an independent State.
We are not in favour of war, but in favour of peace among all the peoples.
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 13, 2011
9:14 p.m.
In this Reflection article the leader of the Cuban Revolution writes that after 18 days of intense struggle, the Egyptian people achieved an important objective: overthrowing the main ally of the United States in the heart of the Arab world
Several days ago I said that Mubarak’s fate was sealed and that not even Obama was able to save him.
The world knows about what is happening in the Middle East. News spreads at mind-boggling speed. Politicians barely have enough time to read the dispatches arriving hour after hour. Everyone is aware of the importance of what is happening over there.
After 18 days of tough struggle, the Egyptian people achieved an important objective: overthrowing the main United States ally in the heart of the Arab nations. Mubarak was oppressing and pillaging his own people, he was an enemy to the Palestinians and an accomplice of Israel, the sixth nuclear power on the planet, associated with the war-mongering NATO group.
The Armed Forces of Egypt, under the command of Gamal Abdel Nasser, had thrown overboard a submissive King and created a Republic which, with the support of the USSR, defended its Homeland from the Franco-British and Israeli invasion of 1956 and preserved its ownership of the Suez Canal and the independence of its ancient nation.
For that reason, Egypt had a high degree of prestige in the Third World. Nasser was well-known as one of the most outstanding leaders of the Non-Aligned Movement, in whose creation he took part along with other well-known leaders of Asia, Africa and Oceania who were struggling for national liberation and for the political and economic independence of the former colonies.
Egypt always enjoyed the support and respect of that international organization which brings together more than one hundred countries. At this precise time, that sister country is chairing NAM for a corresponding three-year period; and the support of many of its members for the struggle its people are engaged in today is a given.
What was the significance of the Camp David Agreements, and why do the heroic Palestinian people so arduously defend their most essential rights?
At Camp David ―with the mediation of then-President of the United States Jimmy Carter―, Egyptian leader Anwar el-Sadat and Israeli Prime Minister Menahem Begin signed the famous treaties between Egypt and Israel.
It is said that secret talks went on for 12 days and on September 17th of 1978 they signed two important treaties: one in reference to peace between Egypt and Israel; the other having to do with the creation of the autonomous territory in the Gaza Strip and the West Bank where, el-Sadat was thinking – and Israel was aware of and sharing the idea –the capital of the State of Palestine would be, and whose existence, as well as that of the State of Israel, was agreed to by the United Nations on November 29, 1947, in the British protectorate of Palestine.
At the end of arduous and complicated talks, Israel agreed to withdraw their troops from Egyptian territory in the Sinai, even though it categorically rejected Palestinian participation in those peace negotiations.
As a product of the first treaty, in the term of one year, Israel reinstated Sinai territory occupied during one of the Arab-Israeli wars back to Egypt.
By virtue of the second agreement, both parties committed to negotiate the creation of the autonomous regime in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The first of these included 5 640 square kilometres of territory and 2.1 million inhabitants; and the second one, 360 square kilometres and 1.5 million inhabitants.
The Arab countries were offended by that treaty where, in their opinion, Egypt had not defended with sufficient energy and resolution a Palestinian State whose right to exist had been the focal point of the battle fought for decades by the Arab States.
Their reactions reached such a level of indignation that many of them broke off their relations with Egypt. Thus, the United Nations Resolution of November 1947 was erased from the map. The autonomous body was never created and thus the Palestinians were deprived of their right to exist as an independent state; that is the origin of the never-ending tragedy they are living in and which should have been resolved more than three decades ago.
The Arab population of Palestine are victims of genocidal actions; their lands are confiscated or deprived of water supplies in the semi-desert areas and their homes are destroyed with heavy wrecking equipment. In the Gaza Strip a million and a half people are regularly being attacked with explosive projectiles, live phosphorus and booby-trap bombs. The Gaza Strip lands are being blockaded by land and by sea. Why are the Camp David agreements being talked about to such a degree while nobody mentions Palestine?
The United States is supplying the most modern and sophisticated weaponry to Israel to the tune of billions of dollars every year. Egypt, an Arab country, was turned into the second receiver of US weapons. To fight against whom? Another Arab country? Against the very Egyptian people?
When the population was asking for respect for their most basic rights and the resignation of a president whose policy consisted of exploiting and pillaging his own people, the repressive forces trained by the US did not hesitate for a second in shooting at them, killing hundreds and wounding thousands.
When the Egyptian people were awaiting explanations from the government of their own country, the answers were coming from senior officials of the United States intelligence or government bodies, without any respect for Egyptian officials.
Could it possibly be that the leaders of the United States and their intelligence agencies knew nothing at all about the colossal thefts perpetrated by the Mubarak government?
Before the people were to protest en masse from Tahrir Square, neither the government officials nor the United States intelligence bodies were uttering one single word about the privileges and outrageous thefts of billions of dollars.
It would be a mistake to imagine that the people’s revolutionary movement in Egypt theoretically obeys a reaction to violations on their most elementary rights. Peoples do not defy repression and death, nor do they remain for nights on end protesting energetically, just because of merely formal matters. They do this when their legal and material rights are being mercilessly sacrificed to the insatiable demands of corrupt politicians and the national and international circles looting the country.
The poverty rate was now affecting the vast majority of a militant people, young and patriotic, with their dignity, culture and beliefs being trampled.
How was the unstoppable increase of food prices to be reconciled with the dozens of billions of dollars that were being attributed to President Mubarak and to the privileged sectors of the government and society?
It’s not enough now that we find out how much these come to; we must demand they be returned to the country.
Obama is being affected by the events in Egypt; he acts, or seems to act, as if he were the master of the planet. The Egyptian affair seems to be his business. He is constantly on the telephone, talking to the leaders of other countries.
The EFE Agency, for example, states: “...I spoke to the British Prime Minister David Cameron; King Abdala II of Jordan, and with the Turkish prime minister, the moderate Muslim Recep Tayyip Erdogan.”
“...the president of the United States assessed the ‘historical changes’ that the Egyptians have been promoting and he reaffirmed his admiration for their efforts ...”.
The principal US news agency, AP, is broadcasting some reasoning that we should pay attention to:
“The US is asking Middle Eastern leaders leaning towards the West, who are friendly with Israel and willing to cooperate in the fight against Islamic extremism at the same time they are protecting human rights.”
“...Barack Obama has put forward a list of ideal requisites that are impossible to satisfy after the fall of two allies of Washington in Egypt and Tunisia in popular revolts that, according to experts, shall sweep the region.”
“There is no hope within this dream scenario and it’s very difficult for one to appear soon. Partially this is due to the fact that in the last 40 years, the US has sacrificed the noble ideals of human rights, that it so espouses, for stability, continuity and oil in one of the most volatile regions of the world.”
“‘Egypt will never be the same’, Obama said on Friday after praising the departure of Hosni Mubarak.”
“In the midst of their peaceful protests, Obama stated, the Egyptians ‘will change their country and the world’.
“Even as restlessness persists among the various Arab governments, the elite entrenched in Egypt and Tunisia has not shown signs of being willing to hand over the power or their vast economic influence that they have been holding.”
“The Obama government has insisted that the change should not be one of ‘personalities’. The US government set this position since President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali fled Tunis in January, one day after Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton warned the Arab rulers in a speech in Qatar that without reform the foundations of their countries ‘would sink in the sand’.”
People don’t appear to be very docile in Tahrir Square.
Europe Press recounts:
“Thousands of demonstrators have arrived in Tahrir Square, the epicenter of mobilizations that caused the resignation of the president of the country, Hosni Mubarak, to reinforce those continuing in that location, despite the efforts of the military police to remove them, according to information from the BBC.
“The BBC correspondent stationed in the downtown square of Cairo has assured us that the army is appearing to be indecisive in the face of the arrival of new demonstrators ...”
“The ‘hard core’ [...] is located on one of the corners of the square. [...] they have decided to stay in Tahrir [...] in order to make certain all their claims are being met.”
Despite what is happening in Egypt, one of the most serious problems being faced by imperialism at this time is the lack of grain as I analyzed in my Reflection on January 19th.
The US uses an important part of the corn it grows and a large percentage of the soy harvest for the production of biofuels. As for Europe, it uses millions of hectares of land for that purpose.
On the other hand, as a consequence of the climate change originated basically by the developed and wealthy countries, a shortage of fresh water and foods compatible with population growth at a pace that would lead to 9 billion inhabitants in a mere 30 years is being created, without the United Nations and the most influential governments on the planet, after the disappointing meeting at Copenhagen and Cancun warning and informing the world about that situation.
We support the Egyptian people and their courageous struggle for their political rights and social justice.
We are not opposed to the people of Israel; we are against the genocide of the Palestinian people and we are for their right to an independent State.
We are not in favour of war, but in favour of peace among all the peoples.
Fidel Castro Ruz
February 13, 2011
9:14 p.m.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)