I recalled what Carter told me when he visited us in 2002 about tree farming in the United States; because he owns a family farm near Atlanta. During this visit I asked him again about tree farming and he restated that he plants pine saplings at a distance of 3 x 2 meters, equivalent to 1,700 trees a hectare, and they are harvested after 25 years.

Many years ago I read that a Sunday edition of The New York Times consumed the paper extracted from the felling of 40 hectares of woodland. Hence my concern about saving paper.

Of course, Obama is an excellent articulator of words and phrases. He could earn a living writing stories for children. I know his style because the first I read and underlined, long before he assumed the presidency, was a book entitled Dreams of My Father. I did so with respect and, at least, I could appreciate that its author knew how to select the precise words and appropriate phrases to win the sympathy of readers.

I confess that I did not like his tactic of suspense, concealing his own political ideas until the end. I made a special effort not to search in the final chapter for what he thought about various problems, to my mind crucial at this point of human history. I was certain that the profound economic crisis, colossal military spending, and the young blood spilled by his Republican predecessor would help him to defeat his electoral opponent, despite the enormous racial prejudices in U.S. society. I was conscious of the risks he was running of being physically eliminated.

For obvious reasons of traditional politicking, prior to the elections, he sought backing from the Miami anti-Cuba voters, in their majority led by pro-Batista and reactionary people, who converted the United States into a banana republic in which electoral fraud decided no less than the triumph of George W. Bush in 2000, tossing into the trash a future Nobel Prize winner: Al Gore, Clinton’s vice president and a presidential aspirant.

An elemental sense of justice would have prompted President Obama to rectify the consequences of the notorious trial which led to the inhuman, cruel and particularly unjust incarceration of the five Cuban patriots.

His State of the Union address, his speeches in Brazil, Chile and El Salvador and the NATO war on Libya, obliged me to underline, more than his own biography, the abovementioned speech.

What is the worst of that speech and how to explain the approximately 2,500 words contained in the official version?

From the internal point of view, its total lack of realism places its happy author in the hands of his worst adversaries, who wish to humiliate him and avenge his electoral victory in November of 2008. The punishment they meted out to him at the end of 2010 is still not enough for them.

From the external point of view, the world has become more aware of what the Security Council, NATO and yankee imperialism signify for many peoples.

In order to be as brief as I promised, I will explain to you that Obama began his speech by affirming that he was fulfilling his role of “stopping the Taliban’s momentum in Afghanistan, and going after al Qaeda all across the globe.”

He immediately adds: “For generations, the United States of America has played a unique role as an anchor of global security and as an advocate for human freedom.”

As readers know, this is something the veracity of which can be confirmed by we Cubans, Latin Americans, Vietnamese and many others.

After this solemn declaration of faith, Obama invests a large part of his time in talking about Gaddafi, his horrors and the reasons for which the United States and its closest allies: “— like the United Kingdom, France, Canada, Denmark, Norway, Italy, Spain, Greece, and Turkey — all of whom have fought by our sides for decades […] have chosen to meet their responsibilities to defend the Libyan people.”

He later adds: “…NATO has taken command of the enforcement of the arms embargo and the no-fly zone.”

He confirms the objectives of the decision: “Because of this transition to a broader, NATO-based coalition, the risk and cost of this operation — to our military and to American taxpayers — will be reduced significantly.

“So for those who doubted our capacity to carry out this operation, I want to be clear: The United States of America has done what we said we would do.”

He returns to his obsessions about Gaddafi and the contradictions that are troubling his mind: “Gadhafi has not yet stepped down from power, and until he does, Libya will remain dangerous.”

“It’s true that America cannot use our military wherever repression occurs. And given the costs and risks of intervention, we must always measure our interests against the need for action.”

“The task that I assigned our forces — to protect the Libyan people […] carries with it a U.N. mandate and international support.”

His obsessions are reiterated time and time again: “We would likely have to put U.S. troops on the ground to accomplish that mission, or risk killing many civilians from the air.”

“…we are hopeful about Iraq’s future. But regime change there took eight years, thousands of American and Iraqi lives, and nearly a trillion dollars.”

A few days after the NATO bombings were initiated, news began to circulate that a U.S. fighter plane had been brought down. Later, it emerged, via some source, that that was a fact. Upon seeing a figure parachuting down some campesinos did what is traditionally done in Latin America; they go to see; and if someone is in need of help, they give it. Nobody could know what they were thinking. They were no doubtless Muslims, they were working the land and could not have been in favor of the bombings. A helicopter which suddenly appeared to rescue the pilot fired on the campesinos, seriously injuring one of them, but, miraculously, didn’t kill them all. As the world knows, by tradition, Arabs are hospitable toward their enemies, they put them up in their own homes, and turn their backs so as not to see what road they are taking. Not even a coward or a traitor would ever represent a spirit of social class.

Only Obama could have thought of the outlandish theory that he included in his speech, as can be appreciated in the following extract.

“There will be times, though, when our safety is not directly threatened, but our interests and our values are. […] we know that the United States, as the world’s most powerful nation, will often be called upon to help.

“In such cases, we should not be afraid to act — but the burden of action should not be America’s alone. As we have in Libya, our task is instead to mobilize the international community for collective action.”

“That’s the kind of leadership we’ve shown in Libya. Of course, even when we act as part of a coalition, the risks of any military action will be high. Those risks were realized when one of our planes malfunctioned over Libya. Yet when one of our airmen parachuted to the ground, in a country whose leader has so often demonized the United States — in a region that has such a difficult history with our country — this American did not find enemies. Instead, he was met by people who embraced him. One young Libyan who came to his aid said, ‘We are your friends. We are so grateful to those men who are protecting the skies.’

“This voice is just one of many in a region where a new generation is refusing to be denied their rights and opportunities any longer.”

“Yes, this change will make the world more complicated for a time. Progress will be uneven, and change will come differently to different countries. There are places, like Egypt, where this change will inspire us and raise our hopes.”

Everyone knows that Mubarak was an ally of the United States and when Obama visited the University of Cairo in June 2009, he could not have been ignorant of the tens of billions of dollars which the former stole in Egypt.

He continued with the moving story:

“…we welcome the fact that history is on the move in the Middle East and North Africa, and that young people are leading the way. Because wherever people long to be free, they will find a friend in the United States. Ultimately, it is that faith — those ideals — that are the true measure of American leadership.”

“…our strength abroad is anchored in our strength here at home. That must always be our North Star — the ability of our people to reach their potential, to make wise choices with our resources, to enlarge the prosperity that serves as a wellspring for our power, and to live the values that we hold so dear.”

“And let us look to the future with confidence and hope not only for our own country, but for all those yearning for freedom around the world.”

The spectacular story brought to my mind the Tea Party, Senator Bob Menéndez and the eminent Ileana Ros, the big bad wolf who defied laws in order to retain the kidnapped Cuban child Elián González. Today, she is no less than chair of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Committee.

Gaddafi is constantly reiterating that Al Qaeda is making war on him and sending in combatants against the Libyan government, because he, Gaddafi, supported Bush’s war on terror.

In the past that organization had excellent relations with the U.S. intelligence services during the battle against the Soviets in Afghanistan, and has a wealth of experience on CIA working methods.

What would take place if Gaddafi’s claims should be correct? How would Obama explain to the people of the United States that part of those land combat weapons had fallen into the hands of Bin Laden’s men?

Would it not have been better and more intelligent to have fought to promote peace and not war in Libya?

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 31, 2011
7:58 p.m.

The post Better and More Intelligent appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.

The earthquake originated at a depth of 24.4 kilometres and 100 kilometres from the coast. Had it happened at a lesser depth and distance, the consequences would have been more serious.

There was a shift in the earth’s axis. It was the third phenomenon of great intensity occurring in less than two years: Haiti, Chile and Japan. Man cannot be blamed for such tragedies. Every country, surely, will do everything it can to help the hard-working people who were the first to suffer an unnecessary and inhuman nuclear attack.

According to Spain’s Official College of Geologists, the energy released by the earthquake is equivalent to 200 million tons of dynamite.

The most recent information, from AFP, states that the Japanese electric Company, Tokyo Electric Power, informed that according to government instructions, they had released some of the vapour containing radioactive substances…

“We are following the situation. Until the present there is no problem…”

“They also indicated that there were breakdowns related to the cooling of three reactors in a second nearby plant, Fukushima 2.

“The government ordered the evacuation of surrounding areas for a radius of 10 km in the case of the first plant and 3 km in the case of the second one.”

Another earthquake, a political one and potentially more serious, is the one taking place around Libya, and it affects every country, one way or the other.

The drama that country is living through is in full swing and its outcome is still uncertain.

A great hubbub broke out yesterday in the US Senate when James Clapper, Director of National Intelligence, stated before the Armed Services Committee that he didn’t believe Gaddafi had any intention of leaving; because of evidence at their disposal, it seems that he is “in this for the long haul”.

He added that Gaddafi has two brigades that “are very loyal”.

He pointed out that the air attacks carried out by the army loyal to Gaddafi “mainly” caused damages on buildings and infrastructure rather than civilian casualties.

Lt. Gen. Ronald Burgess, Director of the Defence Intelligence Agency, at the same hearing before the Senate, said that it seemed Gaddafi had staying power unless some other dynamic changes at this time.

“The opportunity the rebels had at the start of the popular uprising has ‘begun to change’, he assured.

I have no doubt whatsoever that Gaddafi and the Libyan leaders committed an error in trusting Bush and NATO, as can be inferred from what I wrote in my Reflection on the 9th.

Nor do I doubt the intentions of the United States and NATO to intervene militarily in Libya and abort the revolutionary wave shaking the Arab world.

Countries that are opposing NATO intervention and defending the idea of a political solution without foreign intervention harbour the conviction that the Libyan patriots shall defend their Homeland until their dying breath.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 11, 2011
10:12 p.m.

The post Two Earthquakes appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.

Libya’s important valuable energy resources were progressively being discovered.

Born to a tribal Bedouin family of nomadic desert shepherds in the region of Tripoli, Gaddafi was profoundly anti-colonialist. It is affirmed that his paternal grandfather died fighting against the Italian invaders when Libya was invaded by them in 1911. The colonial regime and fascism changed everyone’s lives. It is also said that his father was imprisoned rather than make his living as an industrial worker.

Even Gaddafi’s adversaries assure us that he stood out for his intelligence as a student; he was expelled from high-school for his anti-monarchic activities. He managed to enrol in another high-school and later graduated in law at the University of Benghazi at the age of 21. Then he enrolled in the Benghazi Military College where he created what was called the Secret Unionist Movement of Free Officers, concluding his education later on in a British military academy.

This background explains the notable influence he wielded afterwards in Libya and on other political leaders, whether today they are pro-Gaddafi or not.

He had begun his political life with events that were without question, revolutionary.

In March of 1970, after massive nationalist demonstrations, he managed to have British soldiers evacuated from the country and in June, the United States vacated the great air base near Tripoli, handing it over to military instructors from Egypt, a Libyan ally.

In 1970, several western oil companies and banking companies having the participation of foreign capital were affected by the Revolution. At the end of 1971, the famous British Petroleum had the same fate. In the agricultural sector, all Italian properties were confiscated, and the colonists and their descendents were expelled from Libya.

State intervention was directed to the control of the great companies. Production in that country came to enjoy one of the highest levels in the Arab world. Gambling and the drinking of alcohol were prohibited. The traditionally limited legal status of women was improved.

The Libyan leader got involved in extremist theories that were opposed both to communism and capitalism. It was a stage when Gaddafi dedicated himself to theorizing, something that doesn’t have any place in this analysis, other than to point out that the first article of the Constitutional Proclamation of 1969 established the “Socialist” nature of the Great Socialist People’s Libya Arab Jamahiriya.

What I wish to emphasize is that the United States and its allies were never interested in human rights.

The hornet’s nest taking place in the Security Council, at the meeting of the Human Rights Council at the Geneva headquarters and in the UN General Assembly in New York was pure theatre.

I completely understand the reactions of the political leaders involved in so many contradictions and sterile debate, given the tangled web of interests and problems they must look after.

We all know very well that the character of permanent member, the power of veto, the possession of nuclear weapons and quite a few institutions are sources of privileges and interests imposed by force onto humankind. One can agree or not with many of them, but one can never accept them as fair or ethical measures.

The empire now wants to see events revolve around what Gaddafi may or may not have done, because it needs to intervene militarily in Libya and strike a blow at the revolutionary wave unleashed in the Arab world. Up to now, not one word was said; they kept their mouths shut and carried on with business.

With the latent Libyan rebellion being promoted by Yankee intelligence, or by Gaddafi’s own errors, it is important that the people don’t let themselves be deceived, since very soon world opinion shall have enough elements to know what to expect.

In my opinion, and that’s what I said from the very first instant, we must denounce NATO’s war-mongering plans.

Like many Third World countries, Libya is a member of NAM, the Group of 77 and other international organizations, through which relations are established separately from its economic and social system.

As an outline: the Revolution in Cuba, inspired by Marxist-Leninist principles and those of Marti, had triumphed in 1959, 90 miles away from the United States which imposed on us the Platt Amendment and owned the economy of our country.

Almost immediately, the empire promoted the dirty war against our people, counter-revolutionary gangs, the criminal economic blockade, the mercenary invasion of the Bay of Pigs, watched over by an aircraft carrier and their Marines ready to land if the mercenaries were to gain determinate objectives.

Just a year and a half later, they threatened us with their nuclear arsenal. A nuclear war was on the point of breaking out.

All the Latin American countries, with the exception of Mexico, took part in the criminal blockade which is still in place today, with our country never surrendering. It is important to be reminded of this, for those lacking historical memory.

In January of 1986, using the idea that Libya was behind the so-called revolutionary terrorism, Reagan ordered economic and commercial relations with that country to be broken.

In March, a force of aircraft carriers in the Gulf of Sidra, inside what is considered to be Libyan national waters, launched attacks that caused the destruction of several naval units armed with missile launchers and coastal radar systems that that country had acquired in the USSR.

On April 5th, a Berlin disco that US soldiers went to was the victim of plastic explosives; three persons died, two of them American soldiers, and many were wounded.

Reagan accused Gaddafi and ordered the Air Force to retaliate. Three squadrons took off from the Sixth Fleet aircraft carriers and bases in the United Kingdom, attacking seven military targets in Tripoli and Benghazi with missiles and bombs. Around 40 people died, 15 of them civilians. Warned of the bombers’advance, Gaddafi assembled his family and was abandoning his residence located at the Bab Al Aziziya military complex to the south of the capital. The evacuation was in progress when a missile made a direct hit on his residence; his daughter Hanna died and two other children were wounded. The occurrence was broadly condemned: the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning violation of the UN Charter and International law. So did NAM, the Arab League and the OAU, in energetic terms.

On December 21, 1988, a Pan Am Boeing 747 flying from London to New York disintegrated in mid-air after a bomb exploded; the remains of the plane fell over Lockerbie and the tragedy tolled 270 lives, of 21 nationalities.

At first the US government suspected Iran acting in retaliation for the death of 200 persons in the downing of an airbus from its state airline. According to the Yankees, investigations implicated two Libyan intelligence agents. Similar imputations against Libya were made for a French airliner on the Brazzaville-N’Djamena-Paris route, implicating Libyan officials that Gaddafi refused to extradite, for facts he categorically denied.

A sinister legend was fabricated against him with the participation of Reagan and Bush Sr.

From 1975 up to the final stage of the Reagan government, Cuba had devoted itself to its internationalist duties in Angola and other African countries. We were aware of the conflicts developing in Libya, or around it, because of reading material or eye-witness accounts written by people who were closely connected to that country and the Arab world, as well as because of the impressions we had about various personalities from different countries with whom we had been in touch during those years.

Many well-known African leaders with whom Gaddafi had close ties tried to seek solutions for the tense relations between Libya and the United Kingdom.

The Security Council had imposed sanctions on Libya that were starting to be overcome when Gaddafi accepted to put the two people accused for the plane downed over Scotland on trial, with certain conditions.

Libyan delegations began to be invited to inter-European meetings. In July of 1999, London initiated the re-establishing of full diplomatic relations with Libya, after some additional concessions.

In September of that year, the European Union ministers accepted withdrawing the restrictive measures on commerce that had been taken in 1992.

On December 2nd, Prime Minister Massimo D’Alema of Italy made the first visit of a European head of government to Libya.

With the USSR and the European Socialist bloc gone, Gaddafi decided to accept the demands of the United States and NATO.

When I visited Libya in May of 2001, he showed me the ruins caused by the traitorous attack with which Reagan had killed his daughter and had been on the point of exterminating his entire family.

At the beginning of 2002, the State Department informed that diplomatic talks were going on between the US and Libya.

In May, Libya had been included again on the list of states sponsoring terrorism even though, in January, President George W. Bush had not mentioned the African country in his famous speech on the members of the “axis of evil”.

As 2003 began, because of the economic agreement on the compensations reached between Libya and the suing countries, the United Kingdom and France, the UN Security Council lifted the 1992 sanctions against Libya.

Before 2003 drew to a close, Bush and Tony Blair informed about an agreement with Libya, a country that had handed over to United Kingdom and Washington intelligence experts documentation on the non-conventional weapons programs such as ballistic missiles with a range of more than 300 kilometres. Officials from both countries had already visited various installations. It was the result of many months of talks between Tripoli and Washington as Bush himself revealed.

Gaddafi fulfilled his promises of disarmament. In a few months Libya handed over five units of Scud-C missiles with a range of 800 kilometres and the hundreds of Scud-Bs whose range surpassed the 300 kilometres for short-range defensive missiles.

From October of 2002, the marathon of visits to Tripoli began: Berlusconi in October of 2002; José María Aznar in September of 2003; Berlusconi again in February, August and October of 2004; Blair in March of 2004; Germany’s Schröeder in October of that year; Jacques Chirac in November of 2004. Everybody was happy. Mr. Money is a powerful gentleman.

Gaddafi triumphantly toured Europe. He was received in Brussels in April of 2004 by Romano Prodi, president of the European Commission; in August of that year the Libyan leader invited Bush to visit his country; Exxon Mobil, Chevron Texaco and Conoco Philips finalized the re-establishing of extracting crude by means of joint ventures.

In May of 2006, the United States announced the withdrawal of Libya from the list of terrorist countries and the establishment of full diplomatic relations.

In 2006 and 2007, France and the US signed agreements for nuclear cooperation for peaceful purposes; in May of 2007, Blair once again visited Gaddafi at Sidra. BP signed an “enormously important” agreement according to statements, in order to explore for gas fields.

In December of 2007, Gaddafi made two visits to France and signed contracts for military and civilian equipment for the total of 10 billion Euros; and a visit to Spain where he met with President José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero. Million-dollar contracts were signed with important NATO countries.

What is it that has now caused the precipitated withdrawal from the embassies of the United States and the other NATO members?

It’s all extremely odd.

George W. Bush, father of the stupid anti-terrorism war, stated on September 20 of 2001 to the West point cadets that:

Our security will require [...] transforming the military you will lead, a military that must be ready to strike at a moment of notice in any dark corner of the world. And our security will require all Americans to be forward-looking and resolute, to be ready for preemptive action when necessary to defend our liberty and [...] our lives.

We must uncover terror cells in 60 or more countries[...] Along with our friends and allies, we must oppose proliferation and confront regimes that sponsor terror, as each case requires.

What will Obama think about that speech?

What sanctions will the Security Council impose on those who killed more than a million civilians in Iraq and on those who every day are killing men, women and children in Afghanistan, where in recent days the enflamed population thronged into the streets to protest the massacre of innocent children?

An AFP dispatch from Kabul, dated today on March 9th, reveals that: “Last year was the most deadly for civilians in nine years of war between the Taliban and international forces in Afghanistan, with almost 2,800 dead, 15% more than in 2009, a UN report indicated on Wednesday, underlining the human cost of the conflict for the population.”

“…the Taliban insurrection intensified and gained ground these last few years, with guerrilla actions further from its traditions bastions to the south and east.”

“With exactly 2,777 the number of civilian deaths in 2010 increased 15% as compared to 2009, indicates the annual joint report by the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan…”

“President Barack Obama stated on the 3rd of March his “profound condolences” to the Afghan people for the nine dead children; US General David Petraeus, commander in chief of the ISAF and Secretary of the Defence Robert Gates made similar statements.”

“…the UNAMA report emphasizes that the number of civilian dead in 2010 is four times greater than the number of international forces soldiers killed in combat in that same year.

“The year 2010 has been by far the most deadly year for foreign soldiers in nine years of war, with 711 dead, confirming that the Taliban guerrilla has intensified despite the sending of 30,000 US reinforcements last year.”

For 10 days, in Geneva and in the UN more than 150 speeches were made about violations on human rights that were repeated millions of times by TV, radio, Internet and the printed press.

Cuban Minister of Foreign Affairs Bruno Rodríguez, in his speech on March 1st before the Foreign Ministers meeting in Geneva, stated:

“Human conscience rejects the deaths of innocent people in any circumstance and in any place. Cuba fully shares world concern for the losses in civilian lives in Libya and wishes that their people attain a peaceful and sovereign solution to the civil war happening over there, without any foreign interference, and ensuring the integrity of that nation.”

Some of the final paragraphs of his speech were noteworthy:

“If essential human rights are a right of life, is the Council ready to suspend the membership of states that unleash war?”

“Will it suspend states that finance and supply military aid used by the receiving state in massive, flagrant and systematic violations on human rights and in attacks on civilian populations, such as what is happening in Palestine?”

“Will it apply that measure against powerful countries that carry out extra-judicial executions on the territory of other states, using high technology such as smart bombs and unmanned planes?

“What would happen with states that accept on their territory illegal secret prisons, facilitate secret flights carrying kidnapped persons or participate in acts of torture?”

We fully share the courageous position of the Bolivarian leader Hugo Chávez and ALBA.

We are against the internal war in Libya, in favour of immediate peace and full respect for life and the rights of all citizens, with no foreign intervention that would only serve to prolong the conflict and NATO interests.

Fidel Castro Ruz
March 9, 2011
9:35 p.m.

The post NATO, War, Lies and Business appeared first on Reflections of Fidel.