| Press conference by Foreign Minister of
the Repúblic of Cuba, Felipe Pérez Roque on the mercenaries at the
service of the empire who stood trial on April 3,4,5 and 7, 2003.
Havana City, April 9, 2003 (2nd
Now that I have spoken
of the immigration issue I want to add a piece of information that
I think is important for what I am about to say. I want to say that
we believe that the increase in hijackings —I already said there were
seven hijackings in seven months using firearms, knives, violence
against passengers, grenades-- our opinion is that these hijackings,
these numerous plans for hijackings, for illegal emigration to the
United States are actually part of a deliberate plan to encourage
illegal departures from Cuba, to encourage people to commit acts of
terrorism on boats, and on planes that fly to and from Cuba, to encourage
the hijacking of Cuban boats and of Cuban planes, to create the conditions
which will allow them to tear up the immigration agreement.
We believe there is a deliberate
plan whose final goal is to tear up the immigration agreements which
have been working between the two countries for almost a decade and
to realize the dream of the groups of Cuban-born extremists, of the
Cuban-born terrorist mob living in Florida that have always opposed
these agreements and put continual pressure on the U.S. government
to break up these agreements.
It is worth now casting a brief
look at the text and commitments in this agreement. This is the joint
communiqué of September 9, 1994, signed by both governments and it
reads, "migrants rescued at sea attempting to enter the United States
will not be permitted to enter the United States." It goes on to say
that "both countries pledged their cooperation to take prompt and
effective action to prevent the transport of persons to the U.S. illegally,"
this is signed; it also says that "the two governments will take effective
measures in every way they possibly can to oppose and prevent the
use of violence by any persons seeking to reach, or who arrive in,
the United States from Cuba by forcible diversions of aircraft and
vessels." This is the commitment entered by the United States Government.
It also says that "the United States ensure that total legal migration
to the United States from Cuba will be a minimum of 20, 000 Cubans
I will dwell here on this table
I am showing: the U.S. government’s commitment is to give visas to
a minimum of 20,000 Cubans a year so they can emigrate. This does
not include immediate relatives of U.S. citizens, therefore, not including
that, a minimum of 20,000 should emigrate.
This table shows the true situation
five months into the ninth year of the agreement. Each year of the
agreement begins on October 1.
Between October 1 and February
28, in these first five months of the agreement in the year we are
now in during which the United States should grant no less than 20,000
visas, with five months gone, they have issued 505 visas. Last year
there were 7,237, in 2001 there were more than 8,300, in 2000, 10,860
and in 1999 back then, five months into the year, almost 11,600 Cubans
had received their visas and were emigrating to the United States.
What does this abrupt reduction
in issued visas mean in overt violation of the Immigration Agreement?
Why is the U.S. government not meeting its commitment? Why, after
five months have gone by are we not even close to 10,000 Cubans with
visas and they have issued hardly 2.5% of the visas agreed to?
Last year there was already a
violation; in 2002 they did not issue 20,000 visas. They were short
by 2,000 visas since they granted just over 18,000 visas. That was
a breach of the agreement last year, which ended on September 30.
Then, from October 1 until now,
look at the curve (he points to the graph). What are we dealing with?
We are dealing with a deliberate plan to make those who want to emigrate
lose hope, so that they have no alternative but illegal emigration.
Why don’t they meet their obligations? Why has the Interests Section,
with the extensive consular apparatus they have working in Havana,
with all their facilities, given out barely 505 visas? It’s the same
in March, six months into the year.
So, at the present pace there
will be a flagrant violation of the Immigration Agreement that commits
the U.S. government to hand out at least 20,000 visas. We are witnessing
the implementation of a premeditated plan to encourage illegal emigration,
to leave those who want to emigrate from Cuba no other option than
to hijack boats, planes. What we want is that migration takes place
in a legal and orderly fashion.
There are people who want to tear
up the immigration agreements. There is a list of people we know quite
well who don’t want any immigration agreements, who want to create
an incident between Cuba and the United States, who are asking the
United States to use aggression against Cuba.
Therefore, I think that this is
the right opportunity to warn about this new provocation and confrontation
On May 2, 1995 both governments
issued a joint declaration, which was annexed to the previous communiqué,
"From this moment on Cuban migrants
who are intercepted at sea by the United States will be returned to
"Both parties reaffirm their joint
commitment to take measures to prevent dangerous exits from Cuba which
could mean a risk of loss of human life and both commit themselves
to opposing those acts of violence associated with illegal migration".
This is the agreement in force
between our countries and we see how they dangerously breach the Immigration
Agreement and issue a really minimum amount of visas to migrate legally
Now, I will offer you some information
about the criminal trials, having looked at the background and explained
their causes and the conditions that have brought us to this point.
Twenty-nine trials have been held
in Cuba, in just about every province in the country. Charges were
pressed against 75 people, 74 of them men, and the courts have handed
down appropriate sentences of between 6 and 28 years in jail. Therefore,
it is not true that there have been death sentences. It is not true
that in these cases life sentences have been handed down, which the
law allows for and the behavior of some of the defendants merit. Actually,
even longer sentences than they were given are provided for their
crimes in most legal systems around the world.
The criminal trials were arraigned
on an expedite basis as per Law No. 5 of 1977, the Law of Criminal
Procedure. And here I want to make a side comment.
A summary trial is an institution
that is not new and is far from being a Cuban invention and something
only used in Cuba, far from it. It is in the body of law of more than
100 countries, including the United States and was, in fact, brought
to Cuba by the Spanish colonial government. Summary trials did not
arise in Cuba in the Revolution; they date back to the 1888 Law of
Criminal Prosecution so that it was the Spanish colonizers who brought
this to Cuba, the Spanish colonial government. The Law of Criminal
Prosecution of 1888 was in effect in Cuba as the Law of Criminal Procedure
until 1973 when new regulations were adopted, but they took a lot
from that law. Just as the present Cuban Commercial Code is still the
Spanish Code from colonial times. And the interventionist U.S. military
government from 1900 to 1902 used summary trials. So, we have inherited
this institution, which is also used universally.
A summary trial means that the
President of the Supreme Court is empowered to shorten the time for
holding a trial, but under no circumstances does it mean a limitation
of guarantees. Therefore, I strongly reject the idea that a summary
trial is a trial without guarantees or that a summary trial is an
institution invented by Cuba.
Summary trials also existed in
the pseudo-republic, under Machado and Batista’s bloody dictatorships,
which U.S. governments supported and financed giving them military
and political support, although they were not often used or they were
used but they were not the only measures because they resorted to
more expeditious solutions such as murder, disappearance and crime
against their opponents.
In Latin America the United States
backed military dictatorship that disappeared and murdered hundreds
of thousands of people. They too used more expeditious procedures
such as murder and disappearance, which the Revolution cannot be accused
of. No one can come up with, nor will ever be able to come up with
the name of a missing person in Cuba, the name of a murdered person,
or of someone arrested in the early hours of morning with a hood placed
on his or her head who was never seen again. However, there are hundreds
of thousands of cases on those lists of missing people in Latin America
that have yet to be resolved. No one can accuse Cuba of any such thing!
Just as it cannot be accused of having the new institutions created
by U.S. legislation such as the Secret Military Courts.
Therefore, I maintain that there
has been absolute respect for due process and that all defendants
have had their full guarantees respected in accordance with Cuban
law and with the principles generally recognized and accepted throughout
I will be quoting them in the
six arguments I will put forward.
First, all of the defendants knew
of the charges brought against them and had the opportunity to contest
them before the trial began. They could also set forth anything they
considered relevant. It is not true that they only learned of the
charges during the trial. They were informed in advance and just like
any other defendant in Cuba they had the opportunity to give their
views on the charges.
Secondly, all of the defendants
exercised their right to have legal counsel, a defence lawyer who,
according to Cuban law, can be either retained by the defendant or,
if he or she fails to do so, appointed by the court as assigned counsel.
I will make clear that 54 defence
lawyers took part in the 29 trials; some lawyers represented more
than one defendant.
Fifty-four took part, of which
the defendants and their families appointed 44. I reject the notion
that some of the defendants were not properly defended in their trial;
that is untrue. Those who say this are lying. Of the 54 lawyers, the
defendants retained 44, that is, 80% and the courts appointed 10.
Thirdly, all of the defendants
exercised their right to be heard by previously established courts.
No special ad hoc tribunal was set up to try them. They did not go
before a military court set up in an expeditious way; that is not
true. They were brought before previously established provincial courts,
as our law provides for, and judges appointed who were already there
and working in those courts. No judges were appointed on any especial
basis nor courts specifically set up; that is untrue.
Therefore, all of them, each and
every one of them, exercised their right to be heard in public hearings
by courts and judges that already existed. Oral proceedings were held
with the defendants where they exercised their right to speak, where
they answered questions from the defence and the prosecution, where
witnesses were called, experts were called, where the defence lawyers
examined the witnesses, including the experts. There were oral hearings
because our law does not allow a court to make a decision without
a hearing, as it is the case with the U.S. and other legal systems
where the defendants can plead guilty or cut a deal, and sentence
can be passed without a trial.
Here in Cuba a hearing is required
and hearings were held. In other words, nobody was judged on paper
or without being given the chance to express his opinion and make
his statements and those of his lawyers.
The oral hearings were open to
the public. I reject the notion of secret trials. On average, about
100 people per trial attended the hearings. Almost 3,000 people attended
all of the hearings, mostly family members, witnesses and expert witnesses
—hundreds of witnesses and expert witnesses— and on average about
100 people almost 3,000 at the 29 trials. Therefore, I reject the
notion of the defendants brought to trial in a place with no guarantees
and with nobody in attendance; that information is false.
I must now here make clear the
following: it has been said, "Foreign diplomats in Havana were not
present at the trials." Some foreign diplomats, I should say from
a small number of countries, were especially interested in these matters,
I don’t know why. And this has been used as an example of the lack
Who can say that a foreign diplomat
has any right to attend a trial if someone from his country is not
being tried? If there had been a citizen from his country, the trial
would have been held without the presence of a diplomatic representative.
That is how things works in Cuba in those cases where foreigners must
stand trial because they have committed a crime in our country, drug
trafficking, crimes of terrorism and other crimes. There is always
diplomatic and consular access and representation from the defendants’
country of origin.
Why should a foreign diplomat
attend a trial where Cubans are being tried by a Cuban court, with
Cuban accusers, Cuban defence attorneys and Cuban relatives? What
monitoring job does he or she have to do there? If they want any information
they can address the Foreign Ministry and we shall decide what information
we offer. We do not have to grant a special right that we are not
granted. The courts are empowered to decide who can and who cannot
I want to make it clear that we
have not ignored any prerogative of some foreign diplomats in Havana.
There is simply no reason for foreign diplomats to attend a trial
unless one of their nationals is on trial.
The courts decided that they would
not be open to the press, that is their prerogative and we respect
it. They decided for security and organizational reasons and to avoid
any incidents to limit access of hundreds of thousands and millions
of revolutionaries who, angry at the unpatriotic and mercenary attitude
of those individuals would have liked to attend those trials but couldn’t
go either. But those trials were held with all guarantees for the
physical and moral integrity of the accused and with due order and
respect for their relatives and for all involved.
I stress that these were oral,
public and adversary proceedings, that is a principle of law, which
allows for the defence to present opposing views. Therefore, I strongly
reject the idea of a trial in which these rights were not guaranteed.
Fourth, all of the defendants
and their defence lawyers exercised their right to introduce evidence
in their favor, which was examined the same as that produced by the
police investigation, which was introduced by the prosecution. They
exercised their right to call their witnesses. The defence lawyers
called 28 witnesses who had not been previously called by the prosecution,
of whom 22, the overwhelming majority were authorized on the spot
by the courts to act as witnesses.
All of the defence lawyers had
prior access to the list of charges. What happened to the defence
lawyers of the five Cubans unjustly sentenced in Miami did not happen
here, that still today, all this time after the trial, they have not
been given access to 80% of the documents submitted by the prosecution
because the U.S. government has declared them to be secret. That did
not happen here.
What happened to the five Cubans
in Miami who were not able to read the charges against them in order
to prepare their defence did not happen here. That did not happen
nor did the defence lawyers have to argue their cases without having
seen 80% of the prosecution’s charges. That was not the case here.
Neither have any of those defendants
in Cuba been put into solitary confinement to prevent them from preparing
for the trial.
Fifth; all have the right, and
they were notified of this during the trial, to appeal their sentences
in a court higher than the one, which handed down their sentences,
in this case to the Supreme Court. This is a right they have which
the Cuban law respects scrupulously.
And sixth; I said I was going
to cite six arguments. There has been the most transparent and scrupulous
respect for the physical safety, for the physical and moral integrity
of each of the defendants at every stage of the trial. There is not
here the slightest evidence or the slightest suspicion of coercion,
pressure, threats or blackmail. We cannot be accused of any of that
because we have morale, because we believe in moral values and that
is what has allowed us to get this far, and our people know that.
Now on this subject I’m going
to show you the opinion offered, on this matter of guarantees, by
one of the defendants in a trial yesterday.
(A video is shown)
Presiding Judge: ... to make a statement or refrain
from doing so, Do you want to make a statement?
Defendant: Yes, I want to make a statement.
Presiding Judge: Freely?
Presiding Judge: You can proceed now.
Defendant: I suggest you ask me questions, like you
did to Miguel, that the court asks me questions.
Presiding Judge: You said you wanted to do it freely,
that is, without questions. Well, then I will say the same thing that
if there is any question that you do not wish to answer you should
tell the members of the court that is your right.
Defendant.- I want to attest to here, before this court,
the proper treatment that we have been given by the State Security
authorities in the investigation department. We have been treated
fairly, we have not been harassed, and we have not been mistreated
at any time.
We must say that the officials, the high command of Villamarista
and all of the staff there, including the guards and the service staff,
have treated us very well, or at least me personally. I want to say
this because, well, I have not been in contact with the other defendants.
But, I want to express my gratitude for this proper treatment, and
for the fact that we have been offered very good medical care three
times a day, and in the case of any kind of pain, any kind of health
problem, the doctors have come to our cells, they have been there
right with us, if someone had high blood pressure, or needed to take
medication at a certain time, or for any kind of pain, a toothache,
anything. The investigation department has taken care of us at all
They have allowed visits from our families, we have been given
15, 20, 25 minutes to see our families, and we appreciate this, or
at least I appreciate this. I wanted to say that. The visits with
our families have been open, in front of an investigator, but still,
they have been open, we have been allowed to talk freely. And we have
also had ample contact with our defense lawyers, they have given us
all the time in the world to speak with them.
Well, I want to make it clear here that any false rumors there
may be about the conduct of the investigative authorities at Villamarista
are false rumors, it cannot be said that they mistreat anyone there,
or harass anyone, or repress anyone.
Felipe Pérez Roque.- I
should add a few clarifications to what you have seen here. I will
say this: There are 37 defendants who allegedly worked as "independent
journalists". I have seen publications where it has been said that
we have arrested the leading Cuban journalists, that we have arrested
the Cuban intelligentsia. This is a particularly absurd, superficial
claim, which truly amazes me.
Of the 37 defendants who have
claimed for years to be "independent journalists", while doing their
work as agents of the United States government in Cuba, only four
actually studied journalism and were journalists at some time in their
lives. Is that clear? Four out of 37. And in Cuba there is no such
thing as a technical degree in journalism, or anywhere else in the
world for that matter. Is that clear?
Four of them studied journalism
at a university and worked at some point as journalists, four of the
37. Out of the 37, a total of 14 have had some type of university
studies, including those four, is that clear? So now you can help
me, please, to clarify things to those who have obviously had misleading
information, though certainly not bad faith.
Please, help us inform them that
in Cuba, in addition to the 157 correspondents who work for the foreign
media –some are citizens of other countries, others are Cuban, 157
in all, and many are here now– there are currently, working in Cuba
as journalists, with university degrees in journalism extended by
our universities after five years of study, and often with post-graduate
studies in other institutions, universities around the world, 2175
journalists. Please, clarify that all of you here are the journalists,
and them, the 2175 Cuban journalists who are working today for 548
Cuban media organizations –five hundred and forty-eight!– radio, television,
printed publications, of which 237 have digital versions. That is
the Cuban press and not the mercenaries who publish in the Miami Herald
what their bosses instruct them to, as we will see later. Because
we have more news for you, all right?
So, please, let’s see if the fact
gets across that there were four who had been journalists at some
point in their lives, out of the 37, and that 14 set foot in a university
at one time or another. And that here there are more than 2000 Cuban
journalists and 157 foreign journalists who have degrees, who have
worked as journalists, who have recognized careers. So, we hope they
will no longer insult our professionals and all of you, whose work
we appreciate and respect, all of you who work as professionals and
inform the public and play an important social role that we recognize and
support. But really, using the title of journalists for these mercenaries
who participate in conspiracies to subvert Cuba is something that
offends our sensitivity.
I should say, on the other hand,
that there are more than 60,000 economists and accountants in Cuba.
The idea that the leading Cuban economists have been accused is something
that insults our intelligence. There are more than 60,000, and not
a single one was there, is that clear? More than 60,000.
There are more than 700,000 university
graduates in Cuba. When I see certain personalities claiming that
the finest Cuban intellectuals have been accused, it makes me think
about our comrades, our living legends of classic ballet, music, literature,
poetry, painting, acting, our prestigious journalists, our authors.
It seems to me that this disregard, this limiting of Cuban intellectuals
to that group of people, among whom there are few university graduates,
few intellectuals, few people who have worked in journalism at some
point, it seems to me that this is really an insult to the efforts
we have made in pursuit of the education and culture of our people.
So, please help us to clarify
this, that all of the university graduates in Cuba were not put on
trial, that there are more than 700,000 of them in Cuba. And although
I am saying this, we are not really bothered by it. You see, we do
not allow our patience to be exhausted, we do not allow ourselves
to be provoked by these statements. But, we believe that the truth
should be said with honesty, regardless of the positions or views
one may have towards Cuba.
Lastly, with regard to this matter,
I want to say that the prosecutors have used the following articles
of Cuban legislation, of laws previously existing in Cuba. No one
is being judged on the basis of a law passed after he was charged.
This is a state of law; this is a country with respectable institutions
that carry out their work.
They have applied Article 91 of
the Cuban Penal Code, Law 62 of 1987, which came, in turn, from the
Spanish Penal Code. This article has been a part of the Cuban penal
law since Cuba was a colony of Spain, and it is almost exactly repeated
in the U.S. Penal Code. It provides that: "Actions against the independence
or territorial integrity of the State. He who executes an action in
the interest of a foreign state with the purpose of harming the independence
of the Cuban state or the integrity of its territory shall incur a
sentence of 10 to 20 years of deprivation of liberty or death."
It was taken from the Cuban Social
Defense Code of 1936, which in turn came from the Spanish legislation.
Is that clear?
We consider, and the prosecutors
consider, and the people of Cuba consider that someone who receives
money from a foreign power, supports the blockade, helps to spread
biased information to justify the blockade; commits actions in service
of a foreign power; anyone who provides information to facilitate
the application of the Helms-Burton Act is committing actions in the
service of a foreign power, and therefore, our laws should serve us
to defend ourselves from such conduct.
That we had not done so before?
It is true. We have been patient, as I said already, we have been
tolerant. But we have been compelled to defend ourselves.
Additionally, they have applied
several articles of Law No. 88 on the Protection of National Independence
and the Economy of Cuba, the Cuban antidote to the Helms-Burton Act.
And Cuba was not the only state that proclaimed that it was a crime
in its territory to collaborate with the Helms-Burton Act, or to obey
it. Canada made it a law. In Canada it is a crime to collaborate or
comply with the Helms-Burton Act. The European Union adopted a regulation,
and in other countries, in Mexico, in Argentina, laws were passed
that make collaboration or compliance with the Helms-Burton Act a
punishable crime. It is a crime in these countries to comply with
the Helms-Burton Act, as a result of these antidote laws, which are
measures of legitimate defense from the extraterritorial nature of
the Act. How could we possibly not have a law to protect ourselves from
it? And this law has been invoked.
It has been said that these are
prisoners of conscience that they have been charged for thinking or
for speaking and I categorically reject this notion. What have been
judged here are actions and conducts typified as crimes by the law,
we have not judged ideas. We win battles of ideas with ideas, as José
Martí said, and we are very strong in the field of ideas. We punish
actions and conducts.
I have here the articles of Law
No. 88 on the Protection of National Independence and the Economy:
Article 5.1. "He who seeks out
information to be used in the application of the Helms-Burton Act,
the blockade and the economic war against our people, aimed at disrupting
internal order, destabilizing the country and liquidating the socialist
state and the independence of Cuba, shall incur a sanction of deprivation
Article 6.1. "He who gathers,
reproduces, disseminates subversive material from the government of
the United States of America, its agencies, representative bodies,
officials or any foreign entity to support the objectives of the Helms-Burton
Act, the blockade and the war, shall incur..." It has been said that
they are in jail because they had Mark Twain books in their homes,
because they had The Adventures of Tom Sawyer, or the Bible. These
accusations offend us and insult the truth.
Why would it not be a crime in
Cuba to spread propaganda from the government of the United States,
manuals for internal subversion, texts that speak in favor of maintaining
the blockade against Cuba? Why should we not be able to defend ourselves
from the longest blockade in history? Why? Our country has the right,
by virtue of the Charter of the United Nations, to defend its right
to self-determination, to choose its own system, and it has the authority
for its laws to contemplate as crimes any conduct or actions conducive
to an aggression against our country, that are financed from abroad,
and are therefore a crime.
No one is killed for this, no
one is tortured for this, but we do punish them, and our people demand
that we strongly defend the Revolution, and we have a public opinion
that sees how airplanes are seized and boats arrive there; that sees
how the groups that train with heavy weaponry to attack our country
can act with impunity in Florida; who have suffered the deaths of
their loved ones in decades of terrorist actions. Why should we not
I am invoking here our right to
legitimate defense established in the Charter of the United Nations,
and we are the victims of an economic, political and propaganda war.
Anyone who collaborates here in Cuba with those objectives has to
know they are committing a crime.
Article 7. "He who, with the goal
of achieving the objectives of the Helms-Burton Act" –which, as we
have seen, provides money for financing subversion– "supports the
blockade and the economic war, collaborates by any means with foreign
radio or television stations, newspapers, magazines or any other media..."
And we are not referring here to foreign correspondents, the law is
very clear about this, but we know that these are supposed journalists
who are financed and who are told what they have to write, who demand
of the European Union that Cuba not be accepted in the Cotonou Agreement,
as if this were that important for Cuba –and I will be referring to
this later– as if they could pressure Cuba, which has withstood more
than 40 years of blockade without bending down before this or that
These are the ones who have declared
it, and written it; those who have asked for a condemnation of Cuba
in the Commission on Human Rights, which is what is used to justify
the blockade. These who have asked for the blockade to be maintained,
because they say that "conditions are not yet ripe." The same who,
in addition, receive money to do this, and live well off of it, something
we’ll see later.
So. they have applied these articles
of the Law on the Protection of National Independence and the Economy
of Cuba, Law No. 88, and the Cuban Penal Code.
At the same time, there has been
more than ample proof presented, material evidence, the testimony
of expert witnesses and other witnesses. For example, expert witnesses
from the Banco Central de Cuba demonstrated to one of the courts the
way in which money flows from the U.S. government and agencies to
their agents in Cuba. The dirty money trail is clear, we know how
it gets here through the government of the United States’ front agencies,
NGOs and groups and institutes in the United States, and from there
to Cuba, smuggled in, under the cover of family remittances, it is
all known in detail. This is public money from USAID, we are not talking
here about the special services money, the money turned over directly
here by the Interests Section.
After having provided this information,
I will now move on to inform you of some other very interesting things.
The government of the United States
plays the main role in the inception of these groups, the direction
of these groups, the financing of these groups, the stimulation and
protection of these mercenary groups in Cuba. It is the United States
Interests Section in Havana --and this has been amply proven in the
trials-- that creates, directs, finances, stimulates and protects
the creation and subversive work of its agents in Cuba. By virtue
of what? By virtue of the fulfillment of the Helms-Burton Act.
Section 109: "Authorization of
support" –it says– "for democratic and human rights groups."
"The President is authorized to
furnish assistance" –in other words, money; money from the American
taxpayers– "and provide other support for individuals and organizations
Section 115 of the Helms-Burton
Act: "Effect of this Act on lawful" –isn’t it odd?– "United States
"Nothing in this Act" –in other
words, none of what is said here, that the government and the president
must provide support through USAID– "prohibits any lawfully authorized
investigation" --look at these interesting adjectives– "protection,
or intelligence activity of a law enforcement agency, or of an intelligence
agency of the United States."
This is to avoid any possible
confusion, so nobody thinks that now the only way to provide money
and organize dissidents in Cuba is through the legal route. The legislators,
Senator Helms and Congressman Burton, ensured that the text made it
clear that one thing has nothing to do with the other, that is, the
intelligence agencies can continue to provide money, funding and so
forth through secret channels.
This is what they are doing in
Cuba. They try to present this as a movement that has originated in
Cuba, the "civil society" –as they call it– in Cuba, ignoring the
more than 2000 Cuban non-governmental organizations and associations,
that range from associations of chefs de cuisine to women’s organizations,
environmental groups, think tanks, youth organizations, students’
organizations, representing the most varied sectors of social and
economic activity in the country, truly insulting all of these organizations
and their tens and hundreds of thousands, in some cases even millions
What are they doing here? They
are presenting this as the emergence of an opposition movement in
Cuba, while it is actually an attempt to fabricate an opposition financed
from abroad, in compliance with the Helms-Burton Act.
[1st Part - 2nd Part - 3rd part - 4th part]