The
JvL Bi-Weekly
James
van Luik
Publisher
& Editor & Compiler
Please
forward the Bi-Weekly to any who might be interested
Thursday,
July 15th, 2004
Volume
3, No. 12
5
Articles, 12 Pages
2.
Confronting Myths and Deadly Power
3.
The Mounting Costs of the Iraq War
4.
Fidel Castro's Second Message to George Bush
5.
Nine Fallacies on Law and Order
BY
MEMBERS
OF THE A.N.S.W.E.R. COALITION
Just
recently, during the week before 062804, the Senate passed the largest
Pentagon budget in history - $416 billion with a vote of 98 0. There was
not one vote in opposition by the Democrats. A clear message was sent to the
people of this country and the rest of the world The Democratic Party
stands shoulder to shoulder with George Bush and the Republicans. This
disgraceful budget will provide the Pentagon with more money than ever before
for the continued occupations of Iraq and Haiti; domestic security; attacks on
Cuba and Venezuela and weapons of mass destruction that will be used to
terrorize those who dare to stand up for their rights.
This
money belongs to our communities
to build schools, daycare centers, provide healthcare, housing, food as well
as union jobs. In short, this is our money.
The
attacks by Bush and the Republicans on affirmative action, equal marriage
rights, immigrant rights, women's rights, social programs, union rights,
healthcare and Section 8 housing all could not happen without the support of
the Democrats.
Time
and time again the Bush Administration has been caught lying to the people of
this country and the world, they have been involved in activities that have
broken domestic and international law Halliburton, Enron the invasion of
Iraq, the torturing of Iraqi prisoners, the kidnapping of Pres. Aristide, the
list goes on. The Democrats stand by and allow it to happen.
Why? Because the Democratic Party and the Republican Party are cut from
the same cloth. They both represent the interests of the wealthy and the
corporations.
This
is why the July 25th demonstration at the DNC in Boston is so
important. We need to build a movement that represents the vast majority of
the people of this country. A movement that does not rely on the Democratic
Party for handouts. A movement that will stand in solidarity with those
struggling against imperialism.
2. CONFRONTING MYTHS AND DEADLY POWER. THE DEAFENING NOISE IN THE OCCUPIED TERRITORIES
BY
AMIRA
HASS
(Editor's note: Amira
Hass, is an Israeli journalist, author of "Drinking the Sea at
Gaza." She has reported regularly from Gaza and Ramallah, where she lived
among local people. She has received the first Anna Lindh Award, in
honor of the murdered Swedish foreign minister. What follows is her acceptance
speech given in Stockholm on June 18th, 2004)
The
composition of the first sentence
of any article or a feature is for me the most difficult, sometimes even
agonizing. It's doubly difficult now for me to locate the most suitable first
words in this ceremony. After all, this ceremony should have never taken
place, the memorial fund never been established, as the life and career and
plans of Anna Lindh should have continued normally, should have not been cut
so cruelly and abruptly by a murderer.
So
it's almost needless to explain why I stand here with mixed feelings.
Moreover,
there are three other reasons for the mixed feelings I have, when I stand
here, accepting with gratitude your generous award.
The
irony has not escaped my attention: Here I find myself benefiting from a
bloody conflict, from the reality of an on-going ruthless Israeli occupation
and an apartheid sort of domination that my state, Israel, exercises over the
Palestinians, a domination which robs them of their chances of free human
development, and endangers the normal future of my people, the Israelis. I
benefit from the fact that I report about and from the midst of a shattered
Palestinian society, which became infamous and marginalized because of the
suicide bombers and the cult of death it has been producing, a society which
has so many variegated, rich and wise voices but fails to make them heard and
allows for two kinds mainly to dominate: that of victimhood and that of
religious fanaticism. I benefit, then, from a miserable situation.
Another
reason for my mixed feelings stems from a bitter awareness that my reports and
articles are noticed, widely read and truly comprehended in the outside world
much more than among the Israelis. A colleague of mine, whose views are closer
to the popular and official Israeli version of the conflict, is candid and
cynical. He told me just recently that the more does the "outside"
readership welcome me, the more marginal and irrelevant I am considered at
home. It's not that I am concerned with popularity or lack thereof, I am
troubled that my words and the words of quite a few other Israeli
reporters, social and political critics and activists are not reaching their
natural address.
A
third reason is a related sense of frustration that I experience especially in
the last few weeks. Again, it's personal frustration and a collective one, at
the same time. A debate within the Israeli community of Intelligence has
reached the media, esp. thanks to my Haaretz colleague, Akiva Eldar. It's the
debate around the truthfulness or falsehood of the Israeli explanations on the
causes of the present round of bloody conflict, since September 2000.
Each
statement, which was actually accepted, if not presented, as a purely
objective fact, has been contradicted and challenged by articles and reports
published by Israeli papers. I well remember an article which the Israeli
political scientist, Menahem Klein, published in Haaretz. By the way, he is a
religious Jew who teaches at Bar Ilan University, and he participated in
negotiations over Jerusalem,. It was a few weeks after the outbreak of the
Intifada. He offered the solidly logical argument, that had Arafat really
secretly plotted to eventually destroy the State of Israel, he would have
accepted Barak's offers at Camp David and proceeded from there, gradually, to
his final goal. Arafat, wrote Klein, could not accept Barak's offer as a final
deal, because he genuinely clung
to the two states solution, along with the borders of June the 4th,
1967.
An
exceptionally poignant writer is Bet Michael another observant Jew, who
has a weekly column at Yediot Aharonot, which enjoys
the largest circulation in Israel. What he derives from Judaism and
Jewish thought is a deeply moral logic. Sometime during the first year of the
current bloodshed he commented about the Military and the Intelligence
boasting that their assessments about Arafat and Arafat's plan to escalate the
bloodshed had proven correct. If I am not mistaken, he referred directly to
the present Chief of Staff, Moshe Yaalon. He wrote the unforgettable sentence:
"He (Yaalon) did not foresee the future. He created this future".
Dani Rubinshtein, also of Haaretz, who has been reporting about Palestinians and the occupied territories since the early seventies, added his impression, analysis and information about the spontaneous character of the uprising, about Arafat's wish to resume negotiations and lack of control over the street. Tireless Eldar kept bringing information from highly positioned Israeli and diplomatic sources that refuted the official presentation, or should I say now myths.
Palestinian
activists were interviewed by several Israeli writers. Marwan Barghuti, now in
prison, was interviewed, among others, by Gideon Levi of Haaretz and Yigal
Sarna of Yediot Aharonot. He and others reiterated their support of
the two states solution, he insisted the Intifada started spontaneously. He
reminded the Israelis that during the previous years Palestinians had warned
over and over again that by failing to progress with withdrawals, by the
continuous construction of settlements, etc. Israel was pushing the
Palestinians to a new revolt.
Ben
Kaspit, of Maariv maybe the most loyalist Israeli daily in Hebrew
published a year after the outbreak of the uprising a huge article, where he
analyzed the military conduct. Among other issues, political and military, he
studied the conduct of the army from day one. He referred to the astronomical
number of bullets that the Israeli soldiers used from the start, in no
proportion to the quantity and quality of arms that the Palestinian did. In
other words one could conclude that the escalation was triggered by an
excessive Israeli use of power.
The
list is long. I was part of it. I reported from the field: from the first
demonstrations in Ramalla and Gaza, where hundreds or thousands of people
marched to Israeli military positions: some tens of youngsters threw stones,
the many stood near by chanting slogans, chatting, discussing the
corruption and ineffectiveness of the Palestinian authority. And from distant
positions, the Israeli soldiers were shooting live bullets, wounding and
killing. The soldiers obeyed their officers' orders, who in their turn acted
upon the clear political directive and assurance from above at the time of
the Labour rule.
From
the third day, Palestinian and Israeli human rights and health organizations
commented that the number of injuries in the upper parts of the body was a
proof that the order was to kill. They also claimed that the army is targeting
children. I published their commentary in one of my early reports. An
interview I held with an Israeli sharpshooter confirmed these claims. Amnesty
International had a very good and urgent study about the events: it commented
that the clashes started when Palestinian civilians marched in protest towards
"symbolic sites" of the Israeli occupation military positions,
mostly near the Israeli colonies. I published a summary of their report, which
concluded that the army inflamed the atmosphere by using excessive use of
deadly power.
It
would take days to cite the reports from the field by me and others
that refuted the Israeli official military presentation of events. If you
check the archives, you'll find them. True, all the papers, including Haaretz,
and more so the radio and TV channels, didn't give such reports the prominence
that the official versions received. But whoever wanted to get a broad picture
and more facts - could have done
so. Yet people comment today to the debate and its content as if they were
exposed now to totally new facts. My frustration could sound vain: so early on
did I offer facts that now, three and two and almost four years after are
taken as common knowledge, proven by important officials and commentators.
Well, I AM vain. I don't shy at saying that I published those facts very
early.
So
you understand my mixed feelings.
My
frustration did not start in Sept. 2000. Long before then I used my advantage,
as living among Palestinians, and offered facts which contradicted the common
assumption that a peace process was gong on and that every one was and should
be happy. I referred to Israel's policies on the ground, which were at stark
contrast with concept of peace: such as settlements, such as the developing
policy of closure, which is the Israeli version of the apartheid pass system.
I had interviews with Palestinians intellectuals who warned that the situation
was volatile, at the brinks of an explosion. I made sure to publish it. I
could not guarantee that it would be read. Even less could I guarantee for the
logical conclusions to be drawn. For example, that Israel was not working in
order to make peace, but in order to win the peace: that is, to use the
negotiations period as an opportunity to expand the settlements and guarantee
an enfeebled, unviable Palestinian state.
My
experience and frustration allowed me to consolidate my concepts about
Journalism. Journalism's main task is to monitor Power, to locate Domination
and to follow its characteristics and effects on the people, to observe the
relations developing between Power and the Subjugated. Even between these two
ends there is always a dialogue, an exchange of behaviors, opinion, emotions,
habits, influences. Power is never a one-track, one direction action. In
schools, teachers and the education system as a whole are the centre of Power,
but aren't students playing with them a game of shifting places? Still, men
hold the positions of Power in our societies, but arent they required to
permanently alter their forms of domination because of women's conscious
demand or implicit aspiration for equality and permanent sense of
dissatisfaction? In class relations between the employed and the employee the
permanent conversation between the two unequal parties is being expressed in a
thousand forms: not just strikes or negotiations, raise of salaries or cuts,
but by flattery to the boss and sabotage, laziness and telling of lies or
jokes, bringing psychologists to spy or offering benefits and weekend
excursions.
Monitoring
Power is a voluntarily-adopted mission of journalism, I believe, in a
centuries-old development of the
media and its social contract with the society in which journalists operate.
It's not the only role but it is the most important one. I believe the
mission of journalism is to scrutinize the actions of Power: not to overlook
the dialogical relations, and yet to question the motives of those in power
and their acts: because they'd do anything possible to retain power and deepen
it, because they hold the means to perpetuate the false equation between the
ruler's good and the public's good, or portray their Power as God-sent and
natural. By monitoring Power, the media is contributing to the dialogue
between the sides. They are not equal, not symmetrical, and still they
converse. The media reports about this conversation, but it also participates
in it, by the very publication. It mediates information and by doing so it
helps developing the dialogue. And the media should do the impossible:
scrutinize itself as to what extent it silences or not the voice of the
disadvantageous party in the dialogical relations.
Going
back to the Israeli-Palestinian angle, Israel is the Holder of Power. No doubt
about that. Which does not imply that the Palestinians have lacked or lack
initiative, responsibility, share or influence on the state of affairs.
Here,
the Israeli media is in a tricky double position: It should monitor Power,
that is Israeli occupation. But as an Israeli foundation, it's part of Power.
It's part of and represents the dominating society, which has an interest to
prolong and eternalize its privileges vis-a-vis the Palestinians: here
are some of these privileges: control of water supplies, control over land,
determining demographic processes, containing the pace of development of the
Other in order to secure Jewish hegemony.
But
the Israeli media is indeed free: nobody threatens us our lives, our jobs
if we follow the first commandment of journalism at the expense of our
objective position as part of Power. It's not that facts were not presented to
the Israeli public, early enough, by various journalists. Haaretz esp. and for
many years was carefully monitoring and scrutinizing Israeli power. But facts
have melted away, evaporated with the natural process of socialization. By
socialization I mean the imitation of each other, the adoption of beliefs and
concepts which infiltrates from up down, but then circle around as the
independent fruit of autonomous and individual contemplation and knowledge. By
socialization I refer to the thin line between the fabrication of a consensus
and the consensus created naturally between people of common ethnic origin, or
religious.
We,
Israeli journalists who cover the Power relations between Israel and the
Palestinians, are caught then in the interplay between our freedom of
expression and our natural identification with the society which keeps the
centre of Power. It's not censorship, it's not direct official intimidation
that marginalizes our facts or silences us, at times. It's the deafening noise
that process of socialization creates. By socialization I refer to the need to
safeguard one's privileges be they as miserable as the privileges of
Israelis who live in poor, under-developed cities and neighborhoods. The
common ethnic and religious origin and the natural pursuit of comfort explain
why 66% of Israeli Jews say that are not affected by reports on the suffering
of Palestinians whose house were demolished. A similar rate of Israeli Jews
believe that the Separation fence is inflicting negligible damage to
Palestinians. And they refer to this dreadful set of fortifications which
breaks Palestinian territory and society into disconnected isolated enclaves;
so many facts were published about it.
Also
the facts about these scandalous merciless figures were published. In Haaretz.
Also
ending is difficult. I thought of several endings for this presentation, and
could not make up my mind about any. After all, it's a thank you speech. And
indeed, I am grateful for your generosity. It, in its turn, allows me to be
generous with some friends in Gaza and Rafah. I owe them so much of my
understanding of the Palestinian society and the Israeli occupation, the
understanding that you defined as "courageous journalism".
3.
THE MOUNTING COSTS OF THE IRAQ WAR
BY
MEMBERS
OF THE INSTITUTE FOR POLICY STUDIES
(Editor's
note: Full report at:
http://www.ips-dc.org/costsofwar/costsofwar.pdf)
Just
the Numbers
Total
number of coalition military deaths between the start of the war and June 16th,
2004: 952 (836 US) Of those 952, the number killed after President Bush
declared "an end to major combat operations" on May 1st,
2003: 693.
Number
of US troops wounded in combat since the war began: 5,134. Number ill or
injured in "non-combat" incidents estimated to be over 11,000.
Number
of US troops wounded in combat
since President Bush declared "an end to major combat operations" on
May 1st, 2003: 4,593.
Number
of civilian contractors, missionaries and civilian workers killed: 50-90.
Number
of international media workers killed: 30.
Iraqi
civilians killed: 9,436 to 11, 317.
Iraqi
civilians injured: 40,000 (est.).
Iraqi
soldiers and insurgents killed prior to May 1st, 2003: 4,895 to
6,370.
The
bill so far: $126.1 billion.
Additional
amount to cover operations through 2004 $25 billion.
What
$151 billion could have paid for in the US:
Housing vouchers: 23 million
Health care for uninsured Americans: 27 million
Salaries for elementary school teachers: 3 million
New fire engines: 678, 200
Head Start slots: 20 million
Estimated
long-term cost of war to every US household: $3,415.
Amount
contractor Halliburton is alleged to have charged for meals never served to
troops and for cost overruns on fuel deliveries: $221 million.
Kickbacks
received by Halliburton employees from subcontractors: $6 million.
Percentage
of Americans who now feel that "the situation in Iraq was not worth going
to war over.": 54%.
Percentage
of Iraqis who said they would feel safer if US and other foreign troops left
the country immediately: 55%.
Percentage
of US soldiers in Iraq reporting low morale: 52%.
Percentage
of soldiers who said they would not re-enlist: 50%.
Percentage
of wounded unable to return to duty: 64%.
Number
of soldiers whose tours of duty have been extended by the Army: 20,000.
Percentage
of reserve troops who earn lower salaries while on deployment: 30% to 40%.
Fraction
of National Guard troops among US force now in Iraq: 1/3.
Percentage
of US police departments missing officers due to Iraq deployments: 44%.
Effect
on al Qaeda of the Iraq war, according to International Institute for
Strategic Studies: "Accelerated recruitment".
Estimated
number of al Qaeda terrorists as of May 2004: 18,000 with 1,000 active in
Iraq.
Percentage
of Iraqis expressing "no confidence" in US civilian authorities or
coalition forces: 80%.
Iraq's
oil production in 2002: 2.04 million barrels/day.
Iraq's
oil production in 2003: 1.33 million barrels/day.
Price
of a gallon of gasoline in the US in May 2004: more than $2.
4.
FIDEL CASTRO'S SECOND MESSAGE TO GEORGE BUSH
JUNE
21ST, 2004
Dear
fellow Cubans:
Two
new infamies by the US government that of including Cuba on another of
those high-handed lists drawn up by the self proclaimed masters of the world
and introduced in a State Department report published on June 14th
accusing our country of involvement in the trafficking of persons to which
they have added the disgusting slander that we promote sexual prostitution and
the announcement on the 16th of additional, cruel blockade measures
to asphyxiate the economy that is our people's life support oblige me to
send a second message to the president of the United States:
Mr.
Bush:
I
must be calm but sincere. I have absolutely no intent to insult you or to
launch personal attacks. But, it is cynical to include Cuba in a list of
countries involved in the illegal trafficking of persons. And what is even
more outrageous and abhorrent in this arrogant report that the State
Department feels obliged to issue every year is the claim that Cuba promotes
sex tourism, even with children.
You
are in a position to be informed that Cuba has signed two immigration
agreements with the US in the interest of family reunification. The US
Administration failed to honor the first of these signed in 1984. Ten years
later, instead of the 20,000 visas promised, only about 1,000, that is, 5
percent were issued every year. Following the immigration crisis that broke
out in 1994, our country signed with the US government a new agreement which
was expanded the following year and is still in force. In spite of this, and
although its provisions have been basically met as regards the number of
visas, they have not been met as regards the fundamental, inescapable
obligation to avoid all encouragement to illegal emigration.
With
no justification whosoever, the murderous Cuban Adjustment Act is still in
place, implacable, and indeed, new incentives were added to it. This absurd
and immoral Act has cost an incalculable number of lives, including the lives
of many Cuban children. And it was as a result of this same law that the
loathsome traffic in emigrants emerged using speedboats that come from Florida
to points anywhere on our coastline. Cuba punishes these acts severely,
whereas US administrations for very well known political reasons connected
with the state of Florida, have just crossed their arms.
No
country in the world has given as much physical and moral protection as much
health and education to its children as Cuba has. You should know that a
higher proportion of children die in their first year of life in the United
States than in Cuba. One hundred percent of children and adolescents in our
country, including those afflicted by some kind of physical or mental
disability, attend the appropriate schools and study.
How
can you claim to not know that, while in the US there are, on average, 30
students to a classroom in Cuba, the ratio is less than 20 and our educational
results are better than those in any developed country?
Our
healthcare services have raised the life expectancy of each child from about
60 years in 1959, according to estimates, to 76.13 years today.
In
spite of the US blockade and the collapse of the socialist bloc, unemployment
in Cuba is only 2.3 percent, which is several times lower than in your own
country, the richest and most industrialized in the world.
You
should be ashamed of trying to economically asphyxiate the Cuban people, which
blockaded and subjected to more than four decades of economic warfare, armed
aggressions and terrorist actions, has achieved such feats. You can show us
nothing like this in your own country.
You
are trying to strangle our economy and are threatening war against a country
that has shown itself capable of having 20,000 doctors currently offering
their services in 64 countries of the Third World. Your administration, in
spite of possessing the resources of the richest power on earth, has not sent
a single doctor to the most distant corners of these countries, as Cuba does.
On
your conscience, and on those of the leaders of the world's richest states,
lies the genocide which is implicit in the death, every year, of more than 10
million children and tens of millions more people who could be saved. These
deaths are the result of a vast assortment of pillage and robbery practiced
against Third World countries through the unjust and no longer sustainable
world economic order that the rich countries have imposed to the detriment of
80 percent of this planet's population.
Someone
should let you known about these problems and these facts, instead of
constantly spreading intrigues and lies.
As
for Cuba, you allow yourself to be driven by the fanatical belief that your
re-election in November depends on the support of a mob of well-known old
terrorists and their descendents, a large section of whom were Batista's
embezzlers and war criminals who sought refuge in the US with their booty on
their backs and their crimes unpunished. Others have grown rich through many
years of service in acts of terrorism and aggressions that have cost our
people much blood. These groups are increasingly discredited and their
influence diminishes. Everyone remembers what happened in Florida, where they
committed all kinds of electoral frauds in which they are truly experts
still you carried the state by only 518 votes. I do not wish to humiliate
you by digging up this sordid and unpleasant subject. I will rather limit
myself to tell you, with all sincerity, that the mistakes into which your
commitments to this mob lead you may decisively backfire in the next
elections.
The
American people are already bored with the embarrassing influence that these
groups exercise over the foreign and domestic policy of such an important
country. Your dependence on these groups will end up losing you a lot of
votes, and not only in Florida, but all over the country.
When
you forbid Americans to travel to Cuba under the threat of brutal repression,
you are violating a constitutional principle and a right of which your
country's citizens have always been proud. Moreover, it shows political fear.
As
Cuba, with no hesitation or fear and with very few exceptions, opened its
doors to masses of emigrants so they could visit their country of origin and,
recently, authorized them do so as many times
as they wish through the simple procedure of renewing their passports
every two years, you implement ruthless and inhuman measures against Cuban
families that deeply offend their ancestral culture and traditions. It is
indescribably cruel to forbid resident Cubans, nationalized or not, to visit
their closest relatives for a period of no less than three years, even if
these relatives are at death's door. Quite a few Cuban-Americans are already
thinking of encouraging a punishment vote.
For
purely electoral reason, and ignoring the Resolutions passed by almost all
members of the UN, you have just adopted new, harsher economic measures
against the Cuban people that the world public opinion and the immense
majority of the US public find disgusting.
The
worst thing about your ridiculous, clumsy anti-Cuban policy is that you and
your closest advisors have brazenly proclaimed your goal of forcibly imposing
what you call 'political transition' on Cuba, if I die in office, a transition
which you do not , of course, hesitate to confess you will try to hasten as
much as possible. You are very well aware of what that means in the language
of the mob.
However,
perhaps the most shameful thing you did was to announce that the first hours
will be decisive, since the idea is to go to any lengths, under any
circumstances, to prevent a new political and administrative leadership from
taking charge of our country. This you would do completely ignoring the Cuban
Constitution, the powers of the National Assembly and of our Party's
leadership and the powers that the Constitution and the highest institutions
of the people have bestowed as it is the case all over the world on
those whose responsibility it is to assume this task immediately.
Since
this you can only do by sending troops to occupy key positions in the country,
you are announcing your intention of launching a military intervention of our
homeland. This is why, on May 14th, I "hailed" you in
advance for the rτle of Caesar you are playing; I took this from the
gladiators who were forced to fight to death in the circus of ancient Rome.
Today,
I think it is only right to add a few more things.
You
should know that your march against Cuba will be anything but easy. Our people
will stand up to your economic measures, whatever they may be. Forty five
years of heroic struggle against the blockade and economic war, against
threats, aggressions, plots to assassinate its leaders, sabotage and terrorism
have not weakened but rather strengthened the Revolution.
Forty
three years ago the treacherous invasion by the Bay of Pigs was routed in less
than 66 hours of relentless combat, against the estimates of brilliant
experts.
Some
of us leaders of this Revolution went through that singular experience where a
handful of men, who at first had only seven rifles, managed, using weapons
taken from the enemy in battle, to defeat Batista's armed forces, which were
equipped, trained and advised by the US and which numbered 85,000.
In
October 1962, a year and a half after the Bay of Pigs, not a single Cuban
fighter batted an eyelash at the thought of the very real threat of a nuclear
strike. Not a single inspection of our country was allowed, in spite of what
the two superpowers had agreed.
Dozens
of years of dirty war sabotage and terrorism, in which many of your current
friends from Miami played such an outstanding rτle, could not bring Cuba to
her knees.
The
collapse of the European socialist block and of the USSR itself, which
deprived us of markets, fuel, food and raw materials, added to a blockade made
harsher by the Torricelli and Helms-Burton Acts and other measures did not
break the Cuban people and what seemed impossible came to pass, we stood firm!
This is something that is now in the blood and traditions of patriotic Cubans,
who in the last war against Spanish colonialism, clashed with, wore down and
virtually defeated 300,000 Spanish soldiers; it is the spirit of fighting
against the impossible and winning.
It
is not my intent, Mr. President of the United States, to torment you or upset
you with these memories. It is simply my desire to give you an idea of what
Cuba is all about, of what a genuine and deep revolutionary process means and
of what the people you look down to condescendingly is really like.
Today,
Cuba has the most cultured and politically aware population of all the
countries in the world. Our people are not fanatics, our people defend ideas.
This is not a country of illiterate or semi-illiterate people; it is a country
where higher education is being made accessible to the whole population and
where courage and patriotism are becoming common traits. Experience and
knowledge go hand in hand with its dreams of a society where justice and
humanism can prevail, something that you with your fundamentalism and your
messianic ways will find very hard to understand.
Today,
we are not just a handful of men and women determined to win or die. We are
millions of women and men with enough weapons and over two hundred thousand
well-trained officers and chiefs who know perfectly well how to use them under
conditions of modern, sophisticated warfare, and we have a huge mass of
combatants who are equally well aware of the strengths and weaknesses of those
who are threatening us, despite their enormous military resources and the
technological superiority of their weapons.
Under
the present circumstances in Cuba, and in case of an invasion of our country
if I cease to exist either from natural causes or others this will not
in any way hurt our capacity to fight and stand firm. Every political and
military chief at every level, and every individual soldier, is a potential
commander in chief who knows what s/he must do, and in a given situation each
person can become his or her own commander in chief.
You
will not have even one day, one hour, one minute or one second to prevent the
political and military leadership of the country from taking charge
immediately for the orders on what should be done have already been given.
Every man and woman will be at his or her combat station without wasting a
second.
On
May 14th, in front of one million Cubans who marched past your
Interest Section, I told you very clearly what I had to do and would do. That
is my job. Today, I reiterate it and I suggest that you and your advisors do
not come up with any vicious plan for vengeance against our people. Do not try
crazy adventures such as surgical strikes or wars of attrition using
sophisticated techniques, because you could lose control of the situation.
Undesirable things could happen that are not good for the Cuban people or for
the US people. You could shatter the immigration agreement and provoke a mass
exodus that we could not be in a position
to prevent and you could bring about an all-out war between young American
soldiers and the Cuban people, That would be very sad.
Yet,
I assure you that you would never win that war. You will not find here a
divided people, conflicting ethnic groups nor profound religious difference,
nor will there be traitorous generals commanding our troops. You will find a
people solidly united by culture, feelings of solidarity and social and human
achievements that are unprecedented in history. You will not win glory with
military action against Cuba.
Our
people will never give up its independence nor will it ever give up its
political, social and economic ideas.
Cuba
showed full solidarity with the American people after the painful and
unjustifiable attack on the Twin towers. That same day we expressed our point
of view, which today is being confirmed with almost mathematical precision.
War is not the way to put an end to terrorism and violence in the world. That
tragic event has been used as a pretext to impose on the planet a policy of
terror and force.
Your
measures against the Cuban people are an atrocious and inhumane act. Cuba can
prove that you want to destroy a country whose medical services have saved and
continue to save hundreds of thousands of lives in poor countries of the
world, a country that could even same as many lives of poor US citizens, as
the three thousands who died in the Twin
Towers.
You
surely know that 44 million people in the US lack medical insurance and that
at some point in a two-year period, 82 million Americans had no insurance and
could not afford the astronomical costs of essential healthcare services in
your country. A very conservative estimate indicates that many tens of
thousands of lives are lost every year in the US because of this, perhaps
thirty or forty times the number that died in the Twin Towers. Someone should
calculate this exactly.
In
a short five-year period, Cuba is prepared to save the lives of 3,000 American
poor. It is perfectly possible today to forecast and prevent a heart attack
that could be fatal and alleviate illnesses that lead inevitably to death.
These three thousand Americans could come to our country accompanied by a
relative and receive medical treatment absolutely free of charge.
I
wish to ask you a question, Mr. Bush, about ethics and principles. Would you
be willing to give those people permission to come to Cuba on a
program designed to save a life for every life lost in that horrendous
attack on the Twin Towers?
And,
if they accepted the offer of those services and decided to come, would they
be punished?
Show
the world that there is an alternative to arrogance, war, genocide, hatred,
egoism, hypocrisy and lies!
On
behalf of the Cuban people,
Fidel
Castro Ruiz
Editor's
note:
Official New Bush Policy Towards Cuba:
1.
A cut in family visits from one per year to one every three years
2.
Restrictions on remittances to family members
3.
A virtual end to educational travel
4.
Increased US enforcement of existing travel restrictions, including more
prosecutions of presumed transgressors
5.
Substantial increased aid to dissidents in Cuba
6.
Illegal radio and television broadcasts from a US C-130 military aircraft
lying close to Cuban airspace
5.
NINE FALLACIES ON LAW AND ORDER
BY
HOWARD
ZINN
First
Fallacy: that the rule of law has an intrinsic value apart from moral ends.
(By "moral ends" I mean the needs of human beings, not the mores of
our culture.)
Second
Fallacy: the person who commits civil disobedience must accept his punishment
as right.
Third
Fallacy: that civil disobedience must be limited to laws which are themselves
wrong.
Fourth
Fallacy: that civil disobedience must be absolutely nonviolent.
Fifth
Fallacy: that the political structure and procedures in the US are adequate as
they stand to remedy the ills of our society.
Sixth
Fallacy: that we can depend on the courts, especially the Supreme Court, to
protect our rights to free expression under the First Amendment.
Seventh
Fallacy: that our principles for behavior in civil disobedience are to be
applied to individuals, but not to nations; to private parties in the Untied
States, but not to the US in the
world.
Eighth
fallacy: that whatever changes are taking place in the world, they do not
require a departure from the traditional role of the Supreme Court playing its
modest role as a "balancer" of interests between state and citizen.
Ninth
fallacy: that we the citizenry, should behave as if we are the state and our
interests are the same.
(Editor's
note: These nine fallacies on law and order are taken from Professor
Howard Zinn's book: Disobedience and Democracy, published in 1968.
which is an extended commentary on a booklet by former Supreme Court Justice
Abe Fortas, Concerning Dissent and Civil Disobedience. Zinn strongly
disagrees with Fortas. He does so by analyzing nine fallacies he finds in
Fortas thinking.)