Ernesto Morales Licea, Translator: Unstated
As one would expect, Senator John Kerry's statement that he opposes the
U.S. government's $20 million budget proposal to promote democracy in
Cuba has created quite a stir.
Analysts from different ends of the spectrum criticized his words, using
adjectives ranging from "political opportunism" — linking his
declarations with the possible conditioning of the Cuban government,
during Carter's recent visit to Havana, for the release of Alan Gross —
to "traitor" to the United States' commitment to democratization of the
Island.
Even his senate colleague, the Democrat Bob Menendez, spoke up strongly
against the decision of Kerry, who presides over nothing less than the
influential Senate Foreign Affairs Committee.
But what were the controversial statements of the former presidential
candidate with respect to these economic funds. He said, in essence:
"Before this $20 million is committed, a full review of the programs
should be undertaken and the Administration should consult with the
Congress. There is no evidence, however, that the 'democracy promotion'
programs, which have cost the U.S. taxpayer more than $150 million so
far, are helping the Cuban people."
To explain my point of view, I take as a starting point the fact that I
am a Cuban who has recently left his country, who lived there for
twenty-six years, and most of all, who has recently gotten to know a
significant number of opponents, both traditional and of the new kind,
and members of an incipient but exemplary civil society.
Without mincing words, and begging your pardon for the arrogance: Nobody
has to tell me how ordinary Cubans live, or think, nor how peaceful
opponents carry out their struggle for respect for freedom on the
Island. One of the most frequent mistakes I've noticed in exiles with
good intentions, is to think in the name of people who, at times, they
do not know.
And with this knowledge of the facts I say: If the American taxpayers
have paid $150 million dollars so far to support the admirable efforts
of some Cuban dissidents; if they have been told that their money has
been decisive for the Cuban cause, I think they should demand a refund.
They have been somewhat cheated.
As a committed journalist who knocked on the doors of defiant people, I
can say that save minor exceptions, the vast number of the Cuban
opposition, of alternative bloggers, of these new kind of guerrillas,
whether public or camouflaged, suffer from an economic insecurity that
is not consistent with the aid funds approved, year after year, by the
American government.
And I'm not talking about the scandals. I'm not talking about the
embarrassment of the Government Accountability Office's inspection in
2006, which discovered that these funds to promote democracy on the
Island were spent, in large part, on chocolates, leather coats, chain
saws, crab meat and Sony Playstations. (I don't think even a Marx
Brothers film could bring together such a list of products to defend
liberty.)
Better I should ask a question that could rightly be that of millions of
American citizens in the midst of a worrying economic crisis, wondering
where these tax dollars end up. The question is: What has been the real
impact of that money on the Cuban cause?
Putting myself in the shoes of a native of this country, what have I
gotten in that country for my money?
What I'm really interested in is hearing the response of those who see
these funds as an indispensable help. To educate me with proofs, with
facts, not with romantic suppositions, what is the real benefit of these
dollars to the fight for democracy in Cuba.
Because I, like Senator John Kerry, suspect that those millions — which,
by the way, are impossible to send directly, in cash, because the
embargo prevents it — an imprecise number but no small number of them,
have swelled the pockets of intermediaries, functionaries and presumed
defenders of the cause of my country
And then comes the awful circumstance: Cuban opponents are sent flash
drives, portable radios, some chocolate and some crab meat and the Cuban
government says: "This is financing the internal counterrevolution." And
gives another turn to the screw of repression.
And while some sharp schemers on this side of the sea benefit from these
projects, on the other side, at "the center of things," they receive a
few crumbs from this capital, along with all of the consequences.
No matter what they say: It's not fair.
So I approve of the mistrust and the sharp interest of Senator John
Kerry in reviewing what have been the uses of this budget, which is not
out of this world considering the amount of other United States
programs, but, in times of crisis, I don't think anyone has it to spare.
And above all, it's worth reviewing not only the capital itself, but the
mechanisms by which it is invested in indirect aid. Who knows if the
great fissure lies in the deficient apparatus of implementation, with
too much bureaucracy that takes advantage of the loopholes, burdening an
intention that in principle, as a Cuban, I appreciate and admire.
Let no one forget: The road to hell is paved with good intentions.
April 10 2011
No comments:
Post a Comment