Has
El Pais reports that as of May 8, the answer was “yes” at the Melia Cohiba, while Cubans were permitted service at other hotels. The reason, hotel sources told the newspaper, is that the Cohiba has a new contract with Etecsa, the phone company that is also the Internet service provider – and that contract contains the no-Cubans-on-the-Internet clause. (Unless, El Pais reports, they are Cubans residing outside of
Yoani Sanchez posts a May 9 video of her husband, Reinaldo Escobar, in the Internet room of the Cohiba, where he converses with the hotel employee who denies him service and refers to a government resolution to that effect. The video is here and a transcript/translation is here.
25 comments:
90% of the Cuban population DO NOT HAVE FREE internet access
Not talkin about intranet
100% of the Cuban population in Cuba do not have Internet access except by government permission.
Vecino de NF
So Yoani (and the Florida newspapers who print her word as gospel) has been lying to us all... again (remember Gorki?). Isn't there enough wrong in Cuba that she has to continually misstate the "repression" for her foreign audience? As an aside, did anyone else notice her implicit defence of the use of violence in her "night of the long knives" posting a week or 2 ago?
Relatedly, here is some background on the US cyber strategy vis-a-vis Cuba.
Um, no, Yoani hasn't been "lying," simply reporting on the reality of Cuba as a regular Cuban citizen. Did you feel someone had alleged she was "lying" about something?
In the long knives posting - she wasn't advocating violence. That might have come across to those for whom Spanish is not their first language - and that is somewhat understandable. Actually, she was lamenting the fact that she lives in a place where there are so many living with that thought in the back of their heads.
Maybe lying is too strong of a word. Yoani often states what she thinks the facts are before the facts are known. And she can not stop from using insulting hyperbole like "apartheid." As a blogger, I will give her the benefit of the doubt for SOME of that in this case (I understand the difficulty of getting good official information in a timely fashion inside Cuba). But with the Gorki story, she clearly mis-represented what was going on even though she had firsthand knowledge of the proceedings. Her intent was to manufacture an international incident. It blew up in her face and her credibility was lost. But I will admit it is the Miami Herald and Sun-Sentinal who should have a higher standard and gotten the facts before running false stories.
As for the violence in her writings, my Spanish is not great, but good enough to know what she was getting at. And there was no point in going there, except to be provacative. But first off, this idea that there are "so many" waiting with "sticks and knives" to exact revenge ah the first signs of chaos is pure crap. If she can't even get 20 people to protest or 5 to bang pots, what makes her think there are "so many" ready to kill and maim their fellow neighbors who work in immigration or college admissions, to use her example? Maybe she has such violent thoughts, but to justify and encourage those thoughts is something else alltogether. She does not even offer the anecdotal "evidence" she usually trots out to justify her extreme positions. When US Communists in the 50s were talking about millions of Americans ready and willing to start a Revolution, they were jailed for sedition and treason. When a speech was given that resulted in some street unrest, that was enough proof for a life long jail charge. What Yoani said was far more specific and worrisome. That kind of language has no place amongst any kind of civilized opposition.
"But first off, this idea that there are "so many" waiting with "sticks and knives" to exact revenge ah the first signs of chaos is pure crap."
I can - to a certain extent - understand your skepticism but, that type of talk is rather common behind closed doors in Cuba. Unfortunate? Yes. But it is a perfectly understandable reaction when living in a land where almost everything seems to be "illegal," "unrevolutionary," "subversive," "treasonous." A minority in Cuba have created such a situation that they wield incredible power over the majority. I think it's human nature to react in the way that so many of us react and feel - meaning this "long knives" posting.
I don't feel you realize how pervasive the feeling of "once change comes, those CDRistas are going to get what's coming to them" really is in Cuba. Anger and resentment are powerful forces in human nature, especially when they've been percolating for decades. I felt she was only talking about human nature.
"As for the violence in her writings, my Spanish is not great, but good enough to know what she was getting at."
so your spanish is not great but you're able to understand subtelties? Nice try but you've revealed yourself to have no credibility. Learning spanish might bolster your credibility.
Leftside,
Are you saying that you are OK with the jailing of US communists during the 1950s for treason and sedition? Would you be OK for similar measures today?
Vecino de NF
The reason some Communists were imprisonded during the 1950's is that they were colaborating in spying for the Soviet Union. The US left made a big deal of the Rosenbergs and how they were persectued only for the communist beliefs and were totally innocent of spying. Now we know that they were KGB agents (read the Sword and the Shield by Vassili Mitrokhin) in the US and were members of the spy network at Los Alamos that passed atomic secrets to the Soviet Union. Those actions anywhere are treasonous and the peanlty is death and so they were executed for it.
Yoani is not passing any secrets to anyone because she has no access to any secrest in Cuba. She is merely reporting economic conditions there.
and dissidents are considered to be in service of a foreign enemy -- the USA. every country throughout history protects itself in this fashion under time of war or national security threats. only Cuba has the justification, compared to what the US did to those 'suspected' of communist sympathies. the blacklisting, the mccarthy witch hunts, the lost jobs, the forcing of signing loyality declarations for govt employees -- sounds like Cuba. no, the USA
so what's the difference. well cuba is small insignificant country, the US most powerful in the world, but under national threats they all act the same. and now the USA tortures innocents.
Anonymous 5:24PM,
Are you saying that every government has the right to do what it considers necessary to protect itself from perceived security threats, or that the Cuban government has the right to pursue its tactics because the USA has employed similar tactics in the past?
Vecino de NF
4:40, I wasn't talking about the Rosenberg's. I was talking about the hundreds or thousands of CPUSA activists who were arrested simply for preaching Revolution. Being a member of the CPUSA was automatically seen as being a foreign agent. The FBI thoroughly destroyed the group, inserting 1,500 informants at one time. This is not to mention the 10,000 Communists or so rounded up and arrested in the teens and 20s, for publishing magazines or "interfering" (ie. criticizing) foreign policy.
The question of how much repression the State is permitted to carry out when faced with threats to national security, from inside and out, is a tough one. Article 19 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights says that countries are within their rights to restrict normally recognized rights when they are provided by law and are necessary (b) "for the protection of national security or of public order." International jurisprudence has affirmed that any restriction must be proportionate to the threat posed to national security or other legitimate interest, and must not exceed what is strictly necessary to fulfill that aim.
Now, I think the US elites really thought that the Communist threat was real and had to be stopped. But the tactics used were not at all proportionate to the threat, because actual contact and service to the Soviet Union was rarely ever part of the question. Arresting for someone calling for Revolution (or counter-revolution) is not enough.
In Cuba, however, the securtity threat was clearly present given even the non-covert US policies articulated in Helms-Burton and other documents. Law 88 clearly was a specific and proportionate response to a threat eminating from the US. Coopearation with the US in their "transition plans" clearly could not be tolerated. In Cuba, an adequate investigation of each individual was carried out. Those arrested were part of those plans and and the relationships and payments were all proven in a court of law. I beleive Cuba's actions meet the test of international law.
Amnesty International admits that the US embargo has helped "to undermine the enjoyment of key civil and political rights in Cuba." AI's response to Law 88 is that it "may be determined to lead to arbitrary detention in some or all cases." That is not real solid, which tells me they were struggling with the issue a bit more than tghe cavalier response in the world's media and power centers would indicate. Notably, AI has declined to take up the cause of condemning Cuban in the United Nations for its “human rights record” because it sees it as a politicized issue led by the United States.
Leftside,
Do you have access to the transcripts for the trials of the "78"?
Vecino de NF
I told you Vecino, that I've read the sentencing documents for "the 78." I don't know if transcripts are available in Cuba, but given that these were national security cases, I doubt it. Nonetheless, I have not heard of one defendant or family member denying any particular fact contained in those documents. Have you? I hear them arguing against the premise of Law 88, saying that their contacts with US officials and grantees were benign. They may have been, honestly, in their mind. But Cuba decided lawfully it could not tolerate its citizens to become rich cooperating with Helms-Burton and US actions on the island.
Lets agree to praise those dissidents who stay free from the tentacles of US policy.
oops, "our monkey" is the future son of leftside.
Leftside,
I found it painful reading the translations of the sentencing documents (they appear to be machine-made translations with little actual editing). If you read through them, I commend you for your high linguistic pain threshold.
Not having followed the trials closely I can not comment directly on them but I understand that the trials were pro-forma processes with no or little cross-examination of witnesses, limited defense advocacy, and an accelerated timeframe. I will reserve judgment until I get my hands on the original documents in Spanish. In the meantime I repeat what I have said before: None of these people deserve to be in prison for what they did. It is unfortunate that the Cuban government feels so vulnerable that they must resort to such extreme measures to manage political dissent.
Vecino de NF
The original Spanish documents are available through the same website as the English.
You tell us you will reserve judgement until reading more, but then turn around and tell us that none of the 78 deserve to be in prison. Hmmm...
Yes, the trials were placed in the dock quickly, but there is nothing to indicate there was inadequate questioning of witnesses or "advocacy" from the defense lawyers. If there was, it would be the fault of the lawyers - the vast majority of whom were selected and hired privately by the families. I remember accounts at the time saying the families were satisfied with the efforts of the lawyers. They argued hard on behalf of their clients.
Leftside,
I reserve judgment on the trials but not on harshness of the punishments nor on the lack of magnanimity from the Cuban government. No one was convicted for any violent act. There is no contradiction there.
Vecino de NF
Leftside,
Thank you for pointing out the Spanish version! (I did not noticed it). I read Havana #6 (the Palacios, Chepe, et alles sentencing report, and it is pretty obvious that none of the accused are guilty of any crimes except those defined by Law #88 to punish dissent, free association, and free speech. The sentencing report is long in spurrious accusations of third parties who have not been convicted of any crimes in Cuba or anywhere else. Another thing that is clear is that the Cuban government is terrified of any dissent, and it goes to extraordinary measures to legalize repression. This attitude will only feed the worst reactions from society.
As long as the Cuban government chooses to repress dissent the way it does, it will be legitimate for foreign governments to press it to change its attitude. This is a two-way road. The ball is in the Cuban government's court right now. It can play it by relaxing internal repression, or it can keep it by continuing what is doing right now eliminating any possibility of normalizing relations with the US and the EU. It's up to the Cuban government right now.
This state of affairs in Cuba is not healthy for the Cubans there.
Vecino de NF
Vecino, I don't like Law 88 either. In a perfect world, free from external subversion, it would not be necessary. In fact, it was not necessary until US policy hardened and became more aggressive in the mid 90s. Bush's war on terror and explicit policy of regime change upped the ante further. Look at what Cason was doing in 2002 and 2003 jut prior to the arrests. He was doing his best to make Bush proud by provoking, funding and organizing the counter-revolutionary opposition - more boldly than ever.
So before we ask (or demand) that Cuba repeal Law 88 and/or release the remaining 55 people, doesn't Cuba have the right to expect that the US aggression and policy of "transition" cease? Doesn't Cuba have the right to expect diplomats to act like such, rather than smugglers, propagandists and paymasters? That is all Cuba wants. To be free from any US Government plots and plans. Remember the history between these 2 countries. That is what this is all about - US policy, not the few dozen Cubans. If anyone needs a remind, Cuba is releasing a new book called From Ford to Bush.Cuba understands that many of the embargo and travel (CAA) policies must remain in effect for the short to medium term, but hostility from the organs of Obama's bureaucracy (State Dept, CIA, Radio Marti, etc) can and should end tomorrow! Can't we reasonable people agree with that much?? A simple non-aggression/intervention statement along the likes of which Obama basically delivered to Iran 2 weeks ago. That would go further than what Obama's done (which from the point of view of Cuban security, only made US subversion easier).
"doesn't Cuba have the right to expect that the US aggression and policy of "transition" cease? "
The problem there lay in the fact that such an action by the U.S. would essentially by selling out to dictatorship over the interests of the Cuban people.
While elements of U.S. policy are - I believe - very wrong-headed - to give up on working towards a democratic transition in Cuba would be to abandon the Cuban people comletely.
When speaking of Cuban issues, one must be careful to separate the government and IT'S wishes from the people and THEIRS.
Leftside,
I strongly disagree with you. As far as I am concerned this is all about a "few dozen Cubans", and many more that feel they can not express their opinions freely or create independent organizations without being harassed, arrested, and jailed. Those measures predated any animosity between the Cuban government and the US government when an interim revolutionary junta established revolutionary tribunals to hand out death sentences with no basis in law or custom. Over time the harshest punishments have mellowed somewhat but it is still up to the Cuban government to treat Cuban people who disagreed with it with tolerance and respect.
We agree on one point though: the Cuban government is terrified of any dissent because it sees it as an existential threat. We may still disagree on whether that's justified under the current circumstances.
As far as history is concerned, we must remember that the only reason that Helms-Burton was enacted was because of that idiotic shooting down of the two Brothers to the Rescue (BttR)planes over international waters. Simply buzzing those planes would have been sufficient to send a signal to both BttR and the US government. But as it has been said in the past, Cubans either never get there, or go way over the line. I personally think that the Cuban government was looking for Helms-Burton to get signed because it can not live with normal relations with the US. After all this happened after Clinton tried to reduce tensions with Cuba. (It would not be surprising if Cuba sticks its finger into the US eye again, just as Pres.Obama's administration is sending signals that it wants to normalize relations.)
So I would ask you to convince your Cuban government frieds to release those that are imprisoned in Cuba for political crimes. They can be paroled and monitored. And that my friend would give Pres. Obama sufficient political coverage to take the next step which may lead to all the things that you are wishing for Cuba.
Vecino de NF
Well I tried. I guess we are not going to get anywhere as long as you and the US Government thinks it has a right to intervene in the internal affairs of Cuba. One can make the opposite argument you are making Vecino about the US reason for its aggression. One can argue that the US stepped up aggression and subversion in the hope that Cuba would react and set normalization back. The only way forward begins with the US taking its hands off Cuba. If you think the US has the right to subvert, then you can not be surprised that Cuba intends to criminalize cooperation with the US.
Leftside,
We both tried. I suggested a way out but I guess you think it's too much for the Cuban government to parole and monitor a "few dozen Cubans". Fidel Castro allegedly asked the CBC group what Cuba could do for Obama? This action would go a long way to give Pres.Obama political cover in taking the next step. Talk to your friends in Cuba, and pass along this message! Who knows maybe our trying will bear fruit!
Vecino de NF
Who knows Vecino, maybe the talks between Cuba and the US will yield something along these lines - able to satisfy the concerns of both parties. Perhaps Cuba can gain the security assurances it needs without Obama getting out there and announcing it. This is why dialogue is so important.
Post a Comment