by Manlio Dinucci
According to Manlio Dinucci, it is enough to read the official White House document announcing the restoration of its diplomatic relations with Cuba to find that nothing has changed in substance: the United States still intends to destroy the Cuban state, but by employing softer methods than state terrorism and the embargo. The next step will thus be an attempt to foment a color “revolution.”
VOLTAIRE NETWORK | ROME (ITALY) | 25 DECEMBER 2014
- Ernesto “Che” Guevara, Raul Castro, Fidel Castro
After the Cuban revolution in 1959 put an end to US domination, which began with the Spanish-American War of 1898, the US has tried for more than half a century to reconquer Cuba by resorting to all means possible: from invasion to state terrorism, from isolation to embargo. But the resistance of the Cuban people, organized as a “socialist state of workers, independent and sovereign” (Art. 1 of the Constitution), has consistently thwarted the U.S. attempt. President Barack Obama was forced to come to terms with reality, thereby restoring diplomatic relations and partially easing the embargo.
This decision was welcomed with joy by the Cubans and by those who supported them, who see it as the result of their struggle. At the same time we are witnessing a vast campaign showering President Obama with praise for his historic move, as if he had made a clean break with the aggressive U.S. policy towards Cuba – an interpretation which has been disavowed by the White House itself. “Decades of U.S. isolation of Cuba, can be read in the White House statement, have failed to accomplish our enduring objective (…) today, as in 1961, Cuba is governed by the Castros and the Communist Party.” By restoring diplomatic relations, “U.S. efforts are aimed at promoting the independence of the Cuban people so they do not need to rely on the Cuban state.”
It therefore follows that the Obama administration has no intention of changing its strategy aiming to destroy the Cuban state. It is only going to change the method of achieving it. There won’t be another landing like the one at the Bay of Pigs, carried out in 1961 under the administration of Democratic president John F. Kennedy by Cuban revolutionaries, trained and funded by the CIA. This time, under Democratic president Barack Obama, we will be seeing the landing of “non-governmental” organizations (affiliated with the CIA and the State Department), sent by Washington to support “humanitarian projects on behalf of the Cuban people.” The U.S. Congress – the White House document underlines – “funds democracy programming in Cuba to provide humanitarian assistance, promote human rights and fundamental freedoms, support the free flow of information and encourage reforms in our high-level engagement with Cuban officials.” Special funding will be given to the “activities of private foundations, research or educational institutes.”
On the heels of the “non-governmental” organizations, with their pockets full of dollars, U.S. corporations will start moving in, which, according to the New York Times, are eager to establish a toehold in the country to penetrate the Cuban economy, with sights on the biotechnology industry (highly developed in Cuba), the mining sector (especially nickel, of which Cuba has one of the largest deposits in the world), and the huge potential of the hotel and tourist industry. The challenge now facing the Cuban people is how to prevent the gains of the revolution from being wiped out by the new offensive being waged by Washington with tools that are no less dangerous than in the past. Today Cuba is in a more favorable spot: much of Latin America is no longer “the backyard of the United States” and Cuba, together with Venezuela (subjected to further U.S. sanctions) and other countries, has given birth to the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas (Alba).
A decisive role will be played by a new generation of Cubans who will be called on to keep the revolution alive by defeating Washington’s plan to undermine the socialist state in the name of the “independence of the Cuban people,” which would translate into a new dependence on U.S. imperialism.