notes from havana: May 2006

Monday, May 22, 2006

USIS Billboard: What exactly is their point????

What exactly is their point????

Occasionally I stop by to check out what the US Interest Section (USIS) electronic billboard in Havana says… just out of curiosity… and only when I am in the neighborhood….and every time I come away ticked off… (you can visit their website to read the latest billboared drivel too)

Previously sent I wrote about the billboard messages during the Manu Chao concert several weeks back…

But in case there is anyone out there who doesn’t know about the USIS electronic billboard, it is the USIS attempt at broadcasting its nonsense to the Cuban people directly. The billboard spans the entire fifth floor of the building and is a story high. It constantly flashes “messages” to anyone who bothers to pay it any attention. Many times the messages are outright provocative and there have even been calls to action and promises of US support of such actions. INCREDIBLE….

Well, today I am especially frustrated by two “news headlines,” as they called them, that are the epitome of selective information sound bites and divide and conquer, respectively….. the two follow:

Selective information sound bites:

LA ORGANIZACIÓN PANAMERICANA DE SALUD ENCONTRÓ EN CUBA UNA TASA ALARMANTE DE SUICIDIOS. ENTRE LOS AÑOS 2000 Y 2005, OCURRIERON EN CUBA 18.1 SUICIDIOS POR CADA 100,000 PERSONAS. EN COMPARACIÓN, URUGUAY MOSTRÓ UNA TASA DE 15.9 Y GUATEMALA DE 1.9.

The Panamerican Health Organization found in Cuba an alarming suicide rate. Between the years 2000 and 2005, 18.1 suicides per 100,000 individuals occurred. In comparison, Uruguay’s rate was 15.9 and Guatemala was 1.9

OK SO WHAT IS WRONG WITH THAT??? Sure, the figures are correct…

But, what is it trying to say???? What is the point? All it really says is that Cuba has a higher suicide rate during this period than Uruguay and Guatemala. But what is it insinuating? Why run this factoid on their billboard? Are they trying to say that life is so bad in Cuba, far worse than Uruguay and Guatemala, (which by default of being presented in this way, make the reader place the two as possible-range markers).

Why didn’t they compare it to
France: 17.7
Finland: 22.7
JAPAN: 25.3

Or how about
Russian Federation: 41.2
Lithuania: 45.8
Belarus: 35.6

Or even better yet: since the US interest section is officially the United States Interests Section of the Embassy of Switzerland in Havana

We could reasonably expect them to compare Cuba’s suicide rate to that of
Switzerland: 18.25

Or hey what about IRAN: 0.3

Maybe they are trying to warn of an INCREASE in the suicide rate in Cuba?? NOPE

The numbers above are taken from a table on the WHO website and are mostly from the 1998-2000, Cuba’s figure in this table is from 1998 and it is even HIGHER: 18.3

So, what exactly is their point???

Divide and conquer:

EL COLEGIO MÉDICO DE BOLIVIA PIDIÓ AL GOBIERNO QUE PRESCINDA DE LOS 600 PROFESIONALES CUBANOS QUE PRESTAN SERVICIOS EN EL PAÍS, PORQUE SUS COLEGAS BOLIVIANOS ESTÁN DISPUESTOS A TRABAJAR EN LAS MISMAS CONDICIONES.

The medical school of Bolivia asked the government to reject the 600 Cuban professionals loaning their services in the country, because their colleagues are willing to work in the same conditions.

REALLY? Since when? Since just right now, evidently.

And are they trying to say that only 600 doctors are needed in the country? Does the Cuban doctors' presence prevent the doctors coming out of this school to join up with the Cuban doctors on their mission? It didn’t in Venezuela…. As Venezuelan doctors who were REALLY willing, DID join the Barrio Adentro mission. Why would it in Bolivia?

This is just an attempt to attack the new relationships of cooperation that are developing in the south.

But why broadcast this to Cubans? To convince them that they are not wanted or welcome in the outside world because their way of life is unacceptable? Or to show them that those damn Bolivians are ungrateful for their efforts and solidarity? Left as is there are many ways that this can be taken by the average Cuban who might look up at the billboard while walking the ocean wall, all of them basically saying “Bolivia is not your friend.”

Insidious and despicable.

Fortunately, most Cubans are not so gullible. And most everyone completly ignores the USIS billboard….

Tuesday, May 16, 2006

granma.cu - "I call on them to prove that I have one single dollar!"

Three way war on Cuba offshore oil drilling: adding the environment to the attack strategy

Three way war on Cuba offshore oil drilling:
adding the environment to the attack strategy

Potential offshore oil drilling by Cuba and China, in the Cuban waters near the Florida Keys, has provoked attacks from the left, right, and center of the U.S. Congress.

Taking a leftist approach we have Sen. Bill Nelson claiming to be concerned about the coral reefs and the tourist industry of the Florida Keys. On the right we have Cuban- American extremist Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen rabid at the thought of Cuba being prosperous and glomming on to a chance at causing a border dispute between the island and the US. And for good measure we have a Larry Craig of Idaho, sticking up for the U.S. business sector’s “right” to be making money off Cuban oil instead of “Red China.” While they all seem to have different concerns, the bottom line for all three is to STOP Cuba from exploiting its oil resources in a joint venture with China. The differences in tactics for reaching this goal are merely details, and fit together so perfectly that it is highly unlikely to be a coincidence.

Thhe oil deposit in question is estimated to equal that of the Artic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) in Alaska, while this quantity may be insignificant to the voracious, wasteful appetite of the U.S., it is quite substantial for a small, fuel poor, energy conscious country. Moreover, given the limited economic options of the island due to the nearly 50 year US blockade, the exploitation of these deposits is even more significant and much more understandable than would be U.S. drilling in the ANWR, which is constantly on the block.

While Sen. Bill Nelson has an impressively high League of Conservation Voters (LCV) environmental rating, and thus it seems natural for him to be concerned about oil drilling near the Florida coast regardless of who is doing it, his point of view does not take into account Cuba’s reality, but instead demonstrates a single issue, NIMBY approach to the environment that does not recognize global ecology or the negative environmental effects of underdevelopment, and which would deny a humble nation the ability to alleviate the pressure of the longest economic blockade in history by exploiting an amount of oil and gas that is equal to only a few months of US consumption, according to the USGS.

The Senator is obviously not motivated by his concern for the environment alone. Instead of a positive solution, he proposes punishment of those who would cooperate with Cuba in developing these resources revealing that this is just another poorly masked attempt at strengthening the blockade and strangling the Cuban economy.

And of course, that is the cornerstone of U.S. policy toward Cuba and especially the current administration’s Cuba transition plan, soon to be updated. In fact the 500-page, 2004 report to the president by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba contained an entire section complaining about Venezuelan cooperation with Cuba in the energy sphere, perhaps this current controversy is a sneak preview of the May 20th update that might list other countries by name as hindering the sought after “transition.”

It is obvious that Ros-Lethinen, who voted FOR opening the ANWR to drilling twice in 2005 and who sports an 11% LCV rating, is not at all concerned with the environment. And although she has publicly given lip service to the environmental angle and has managed to gathered up a few cosponsors who generally vote more environmentally, seven of the eleven Floridian cosponsors to her bill are the usual suspects: Lincoln Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Mario Diaz-Balart (11% LCV), Connie Mack (22% LCV), Katherine Harris (17% LCV) etc. All seven joined her in voting FOR drilling in the ANWR twice in 2005. The house version of this bill is just an opportunistic ride for the rightwing Miami extremists whose sole purpose for being is to destroy the Cuban Revolution.

Their true interest lies in the section of the Nelson’s bill that would cancel the 1977 Maritime Boundary Agreement, which could potentially result in a border dispute between the two countries, escalating their already severely strained “relationship,” and perhaps providing a pretext for military aggression.

And the third angle? Larry Craig of Idaho extolling U.S. business’ right to make a buck whenever possible, period. Cuba has long been exploiting off shore petroleum resources, mostly in the Gulf of Mexico, with the cooperation of several diverse countries. Larry Craig has, for a while now, been pushing for access to the Cuban market in many areas. While this is arguably in Cuba’s favor, as normalizing trade relations would allow the island to flourish, in this case he has brought up the US blockade within the context of protectionist fervor and warmed-over cold war fears that will do more harm to his cause than good. In a recent New York Times article Craig said, “Red China should not be drilling for oil within spitting distance of our shores.” Framing the current controversy in this manner is illogical. Appealing for approval to cooperate with communist Cuba in order to stop communist China, makes no sense.

So in summary: Craig wants to drill—with Cuba. Nelson doesn’t want any drilling at all. Ros-Lehtinen and Co. couldn’t care less about drilling as long as Cuba does not profit. Each one’s specifics cancel out the others’ no matter how you arrange them, leaving only the common denominator: stopping a Cuba/China joint venture from drilling for oil in the waters between Cuba and the Florida Keys.

Is it a coincidence that all bases were covered almost simultaneously, or is this a planned full court press? We can expect to see more of these three-way attacks in the near future as global resources become scarcer and as the current powers that be discover that they can add the environment to their attack strategy—from what falsely appears to be a leftist stance.