The ramifications of the nationwide protests in Cuba of 11 July 2021 remain unexhausted. Migration, the imposition of the infrastructure system, and the failures of the Cuban propaganda machinery in the face of a counter-counter-revolutionary narrative from artists and intellectuals many not safely projecting views from outside of Cuba are all well known. But they seem to have had little effect. This has produced a bit of soul searching among Cuban thinkers, including those who were sympathetic to the ideals of a revolution that has now rdrifted far afield.
In his short but quite pointed essay, "Jugando con Fuego" [Playing with Fire] (17 June 2022), Domingo Amuchastequi eamines the context a dn notes the growing risks of the inaction (except that of the security apparatus) that seems to be the entirety of the action taken by the state.He nicely identifies the ground zero of the risk to the current system:
Mientras, un sinnúmero de intelectuales cubanos provenientes de diferentes esferas —unos más viejos y otros más jóvenes pero siempre leales a la Revolución— han venido insistiendo en publicaciones, blogs y entrevistas en dos cuestiones capitales: a. Que la responsabilidad principal por el 11-J recae en la persistente y empecinada posición gubernamental de no emprender las transformaciones indispensables y b. Que de no acometer tales cambios, la experiencia del 11-J puede repetirse en algún momento relativamente cercano.
(Meanwhile, countless Cuban intellectuals from different spheres —some older and others younger but always loyal to the Revolution— have been insisting in publications, blogs and interviews on two key issues: a. That the main responsibility for 11-J falls on the government's persistent and stubborn position of not undertaking the necessary transformations and b. That if such changes are not made, the experience of 11-J can be repeated at a relatively close time. )That is, of course, the key. It was one that Amuchastequi noted has been well known at the highest levels of the Party.
De nuevo permítaseme parafrasear dos ideas claves de Fidel Castro: a. El socialismo no sirve ni para nosotros mismos (famoso testimonio a un periodista norteamericano) y b. La situación se caracteriza por una batalla de ideas. ("Again let me paraphrase two key ideas of Fidel Castro: a. Socialism is not even useful for ourselves (famous testimony to an American journalist) and b. The situation is characterized by a battle of ideas.")
But there is no battle of ideas within the Party--certainly not since the 7th PCC Congress. And a deep reconsideration of the development of Cuban Leninism appears to be off the table--qite a contrast from the happenings in China in the run up to their 20th Congress this October..
The essay first appeared in La Joven Cuba and was posted 24 June 2022. It is republished here with permission, along with my translation of the original Spanish into English.
Domingo Amuchastegui has had a long and distinguished career. He has served as Cuba's Chargé d'Affaires in Guatemala, was Department Head of Socialist Countries at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Department Head of the Organization Departament at the Tricontinental Organization (1960s-70s), Chief Analyst in the Intelligence Directorate and "Liberación", and a Professor of Contemporary History and Regional Conflicts at the Universidad Pedagógica and the Instituto Superior de Relaciones Internacionales (Cuba). He is the author of Historia Contemporánea de Asia y Africa (4 volumes), Palestina: Dimensiones de un Conflicto, Angola in the XX Century (1988)and the co-author of Intelligence and the Cuban Missile Crisis. In addition he has written hundred of articles and essays for Cuba News, Cuba Standard, and various Cuban publications. He participated in fact-finding missions throughout Africa, Asia and Chile, served as Chief analyst during Fidel Castro's visit to Chile and adviser to the Angolan Government (1986-1988). He has resided in the United States since 1994.
JUGANDO CON FUEGO
Por Domingo Amuchastegui (17/6/2022)
Nos acercamos al primer aniversario de los acontecimientos del 11 de julio que, sin lugar a dudas, impactaron profundamente a la totalidad de la estructura de poder en Cuba, incluyendo sus niveles de legitimidad a lo interno así como en el plano internacional. Se ha discutido hasta hoy producto de qué causas de estos acontecimientos, con puntos de vista polarizados en torno a dos razonamientos esenciales:
a. Lo ocurrido fue un estallido social espontáneo derivado de la agudísima crisis económico-social que vive el país y la persistente renuencia de parte de la dirigencia a acometer un profundo e integral replanteo del sistema inoperante desde hace décadas;
b. Lo ocurrido fue un estallido orquestado y financiado desde EEUU, “la culpa,” como como ha sido siempre, “es del imperialismo.”
No es poco lo que adeuda EEUU en materia de hostilidad, subversión, agresiones. Es una dimensión que no puede ser ignorada; lo confirman 63 años de semejantes prácticas, y es bien conocida. Pero, y éste es un gran pero como habitúo a decir, la responsabilidad en esta experiencia del 11 de Julio recae desde hace décadas en la obstinada política de mantener el sistema tal cual funcionó en los primeros tiempos de la revolución y de sus alianzas internacionales de entonces, máxime en tiempos en que la dirigencia que reemplazó a Fidel Castro, carece del talento, audacia, cratividad, legitimidad y atributos de éste.
Si fuéramos a aceptar que fue obra de la política de EEUU y de sus bastardos de Miami, le estaríamos haciendo un enorme reconocimiento y favor a estos dos factores luego de 62 años de sostenidos fracasos, cuyos merecimientos serían más que inmerecidos.
El pasado 1ro de Mayo pudo el gobierno cubano mostrar todavía un importante apoyo de masas, cosa que lejos de darle sustento para acometer más profundas transformaciones del fracasado modelo desató una ola de triunfalismo (algunos lo llaman triunfalismo defensive) mediático que muy poco o nada tienen que ver con el agravamiento de la crisis económico-social y política que sigue erosionando la hegemonía del sistema. Una vez más el gobierno echa mano de las respuestas represivas -así lo demuestra el recién aprobado Código Penal y las exageradas sanciones penales a un elevado número de los detenidos el 11J, como contraparte inoperante para aplacar y superar dicha crisis.
Mientras, un sinnúmero de intelectuales cubanos provenientes de diferentes esferas —unos más viejos y otros más jóvenes pero siempre leales a la Revolución— han venido insistiendo en publicaciones, blogs y entrevistas en dos cuestiones capitales: a. Que la responsabilidad principal por el 11-J recae en la persistente y empecinada posición gubernamental de no emprender las transformaciones indispensables y b. Que de no acometer tales cambios, la experiencia del 11-J puede repetirse en algún momento relativamente cercano. Con mucha claridad, Félix Sautié ha advertido recientemente en su blog acerca de los peligros de un nuevo estallido social, pero centrando los problemas en los pésimos niveles de gestión de las autoridades gubernamentales y su burocracia.
De nuevo permítaseme parafrasear dos ideas claves de Fidel Castro: a. El socialismo no sirve ni para nosotros mismos (famoso testimonio a un periodista norteamericano) y b. La situación se caracteriza por una batalla de ideas. Pregunto, primero: si Fidel consideraba al socialismo como era entendido en esos tiempos de fines de los 80 del siglo pasado, como algo superado o desfasado, ¿qué se hizo para superarlo? Muy poco o nada. Y segundo: si Fidel planteó que la batalla de ideas era esencial en la nueva situación, creo que no se refería a echarle mano a un asfixiante Código Penal, acciones policiales y sanciones aparentemente legales y reservadas solo para crímenes mayores, que no es el caso con el estallido, ¿qué tiene que ver esto con la confrontación de ideas? Nada; simplemente todo lo contrario.
La canción Patria y Vida, que nació entre los integrantes del Movimiento San Isidro, pese a su relativo impacto mediático en las redes sociales y a que fuera premiada con un Grammy; en poco tiempo agotó su posible potencial movilizador. Hoy nos enfrentamos a experiencias muy diferentes. Por ejemplo, Amelia Calzadilla, una mujer joven, madre de tres hijos e hija de revolucionarios, que con enorme fuerza y energía, salida de la nada, ha logrado producir un impacto sin precedentes, nacional y en medios internacionales, mediante un uso inteligente de las redes sociales.
Ella grabó y difundió una enérgica, breve, concisa y demoledora presentación de la situación actual en que vive la mayor parte de los cubanos en la Isla. Parecerá a algunos algo poco trascedente, mientras que los medios oficiales en Cuba procuran restarle importancia, denigrándola. Ambos se equivocan.
Su repercusión ha sido enorme, incalculable. Nadie en la disidencia financiada por EE.UU. —como destaco siempre—, ha tenido el impacto, resonancia y apoyo que tan breve declaración ha conseguido en el escenario político de Cuba. La razón es una: interpretó correctamente las agonías diarias de la gran mayoría, de sus reclamos elementales; en tanto su índice acusador no se dirige a dirigentes subalternos, sino a las más altas instancias.
Supo desatar una oleada de simpatía y apoyo. ¿Podrá traducirse en algo más orgánico y movilizador? Probablemente no, pero ello no debe en lo absoluto restarle importancia. ¿Influirá más directamente sobre los diseños de reforma del gobierno? No puede pasarse por alto ni subestimarlo.
Suenan ya las alarmas como nunca tras el estallido del 11-J. Bien pudiera ser un simple chispazo, pero no olvidemos aquello de que «una chispa puede encender la pradera» (para no olvidar una famosa frase) y cabe agregar: mucho más cuando pronósticos muy serios apuntan a una posible repetición o algo similar a lo del 11-J. ¡No se puede jugar con fuego!
PLAYING WITH FIRE
By Domingo Amuchastegui (6/17/2022)
We are approaching the first anniversary of the events of July 11, which, without a doubt, deeply impacted the entire power structure in Cuba, including its levels of legitimacy internally as well as internationally. Until today, the product of what causes of these events has been discussed, with polarized points of view around two essential reasonings:
a. What happened was a spontaneous social explosion derived from the extremely acute economic-social crisis that the country is experiencing and the persistent reluctance on the part of the leadership to undertake a profound and comprehensive rethinking of the system that has been inoperative for decades;
b. What happened was an explosion orchestrated and financed from the US, "the fault," as it has always been, "is imperialism."
What the United States owes in terms of hostility, subversion, and aggression is not a small thing. It is a dimension that cannot be ignored; it is confirmed by 63 years of similar practices, and it is well known. But, and this is a big but as I usually say, the responsibility for this experience of July 11 has fallen for decades on the obstinate policy of maintaining the system as it worked in the early days of the revolution and its international alliances of then, especially in times when the leadership that replaced Fidel Castro lacks his talent, audacity, creativity, legitimacy and attributes.
If we were to accept that it was the work of US policy and its Miami bastards, we would be doing a huge recognition and favor to these two factors after 62 years of sustained failures, whose merits would be more than undeserved.
On May 1st, the Cuban government was still able to show significant mass support, which, far from giving it sustenance to undertake deeper transformations of the failed model, unleashed a wave of triumphalism (some call it defensive triumphalism) in the media that has very little or nothing to do with the aggravation of the socio-economic and political crisis that continues to erode the hegemony of the system. Once again the government resorts to repressive responses - as shown by the recently approved Penal Code and the exaggerated penal sanctions to a large number of those detained on 11J, as an ineffective counterpart to placate and overcome said crisis.
Meanwhile, countless Cuban intellectuals from different spheres —some older and others younger but always loyal to the Revolution— have been insisting in publications, blogs and interviews on two key issues: a. That the main responsibility for 11-J falls on the government's persistent and stubborn position of not undertaking the necessary transformations and b. That if such changes are not made, the experience of 11-J can be repeated at a relatively close time. Very clearly, Félix Sautié has recently warned on his blog about the dangers of a new social upheaval, but focusing the problems on the terrible levels of management of government authorities and their bureaucracy.
Again let me paraphrase two key ideas of Fidel Castro: a. Socialism is not even useful for ourselves (famous testimony to an American journalist) and b. The situation is characterized by a battle of ideas. I ask, first: if Fidel considered socialism as it was understood in those times at the end of the 80s of the last century, as something outdated or outdated, what was done to overcome it? Very little or nothing. And second: if Fidel stated that the battle of ideas was essential in the new situation, I think he was not referring to resorting to a suffocating Penal Code, police actions and apparently legal sanctions reserved only for major crimes, which is not the case. with the explosion, what does this have to do with the confrontation of ideas? Any; just the opposite.
The song Patria y Vida, which was born among the members of the San Isidro Movement, despite its relative media impact on social networks and the fact that it was awarded a Grammy; in a short time it exhausted its possible mobilizing potential. Today we face very different experiences. For example, Amelia Calzadilla, a young woman, mother of three children and daughter of revolutionaries, who with enormous strength and energy, out of nowhere, has managed to produce an unprecedented impact, nationally and in international media, through the intelligent use of social networks.
She recorded and broadcast an energetic, brief, concise and devastating presentation of the current situation in which most Cubans live on the Island. It will seem to some something of little consequence, while the official media in Cuba try to downplay it, denigrating it. They are both wrong.
Its impact has been enormous, incalculable. No one in the dissidence financed by the US —as I always emphasize— has had the pact, resonance and support that such a brief statement has achieved in the political scene of Cuba. The reason is one: he correctly interpreted the daily agonies of the great majority, of their elemental claims; while the accusing index of him is not addressed to subordinate leaders, but to the highest instances.
He knew how to unleash a wave of sympathy and support. Could it be translated into something more organic and mobilizing? Probably not, but that should not make it less important at all. Will it more directly influence government reform designs? It cannot be overlooked or underestimated.
The alarms are already sounding like never before after the outbreak of 11-J. It could well be a simple spark, but let's not forget that "a spark can light the prairie" (not to forget a famous phrase) and it should be added: much more when very serious forecasts point to a possible repetition or something similar to the 11-J. You can't play with fire!
No comments:
Post a Comment