Monday, April 20, 2009
No Changes for Unidad Cubana
Almost every Monday evening, Ramon Bonachea (pictured above) sits down with Armando Perez Roura on Radio Mambi for at least one hour to discuss the latest news about Cuba. Bonachea is a Cuban historian who has authored at least one book (as far as I know) and writes a weekly column on Cuban history for Libre magazine, a local publication. Bonachea also belongs to Unidad Cubana, a militant Cuban exile organization whose members include Miguel Saavedra from Vigilia Mambisa and Rodolfo Frometa from the F4 Commandos. Bonachea plays a very important role for Unidad Cubana as the director of the "Analysis Group," which makes their plans for a future "free Cuba."
[Unidad Cubana got some attention in 2007 when they announced their "Miami Declaration" which I wrote about here, and the Cuban Triangle mentioned here and here.]
Last Monday, upon the announcement of new US policy allowing Cuban families unlimited travel and sending of remittances to Cuba, Ramon Bonachea was ready that evening to respond on Radio Mambi to these new changes. Days before, members of the Foro Patriotico Cubano (Cuban Patriotic Council, an umbrella group of several militant Cuban exile organizations), gathered and voted unanimously on a declaration which was sent to their Congressional representatives, and other officials, rejecting and denouncing the idea of unlimited travel and remittances to Cuba.
Since the new policy, it seems that Cuban exile militants have taken a defensive and patient position. They foresee more political repression inside Cuba, but cannot know for certain that it will be any different than before. Most likely they will now be vigilant of any changes that will vindicate their warnings of "unilateral concessions" to the Cuban government. In the meantime, it seems that they are also looking for someone to blame for these changes.
In the comments expressed last Monday by Ramon Bonachea (video above), it seems that Cubans who have recently migrated to the US are to blame for these changes. While a 2007 FIU Cuba poll showed that a large majority of Cuban migrants who arrived after 1985 favored ending travel restrictions to Cuba from the US, many others within the exile community, regardless of the time of their arrival to the US, also favored ending the travel restrictions, the most prominent being members of the Cuban American National Foundation.
But, this didn't stop Ramon Bonachea from unfairly and irresponsibly attacking recent Cuban immigrants.
"Now, they can freely return [to Cuba]... all these who have come recently looking for a better material life, which the Cuban regime, who they undoubtedly supported, was able to give them. Now they can return [to Cuba] to meet with the jinetaras and jineteros that populate the capital of Havana, [go] to their parties, simply because they are accustomed to bowing their heads before the [Cuban] tyranny, to be compliant with the first 'sicario' (terrorist or assassin) that greets them, to sympathize with the [Castro] regime until the end because that way they don't have to think."
[...]
"They will return to the island, as humiliated and complaisant as they were when they lived there, without caring at all about the suffering of the people."
But, the most important message that Ramon Bonachea had was directed to the loyal and militant listeners of Radio Mambi. Bonachea told them not to feel defeated because this would be a victory of psychological warfare waged by Cuban government spies in Miami. Cuban militants must continue to be "vertically opposed" to any changes in their position, and remain "intransigent" against the Castro regime. Bonachea states:
"With the enemy you do not negotiate... Against the enemy [you use] rebellion and insurrection [to achieve] the total cleansing of, from all levels of our homeland, those social parasites and invertebrate sociopaths that have bloodied Cuba from one end to the other. That is the position of the real fighters in Cuba, the position of the intransigent exile community and certainly the position that reflects the work of Unidad Cubana.
"We accept no less than total and absolute freedom. No less than implementing justice so that the crime will not repeat itself."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
wow, totally crazy. Thanks for exposing this .... I can't believe they call most recent immigrants, sociopaths, in effect.
Just b/c they see world differently?? these folks are committing same sins as castro, but from opposite side of spectrum.
You might be misreading the post Anonymous.
Bonachea's use of "sociopath" is directed towards individuals in the Cuban government, namely the top leaders. Cuban exile militants normally leave the worst insults to Cuba's top leaders.
I have now added a few words in my post to make it more clear that Bonachea is calling the top leaders in the Cuban government "social parasites" and "invertebrate sociopaths" and not recent Cuban immigrants.
I have never heard Bonachea, or any other Cuban exile militant, call recent Cubans immigrants "sociopaths" or qualify them as such.
But, in recent months I have noticed that there is great frustration among militants at recent Cuban immigrants for not taking up their cause. They sometimes refer to them as people without "honor" or "dignity."
They most likely feel the same way about Cubans on the island, who they believe are either brainwashed (and unable to make a reasonable judgment) or just riff-raff that prefer to be dominated. In other words, they look down on them with contempt.
USTED NO ES MAS QUE UN FANATICO APROVECHADO DE LA SITUACION.ME ALEGRO DE LAS MEDIDAS DE OBAMA Y NO ME CONSIDERO UNO DE ESOS CUBANOS QUE USTED MENCIONA PORQUE LLEGUE A ESTE PAIS A TRIUNFAR Y LO HE LOGRADO SOBRE LA BASE DEL TRABAJO HONESTO.
LA POLITICA ES ALGO MUY COCHINO Y POR ENCIMA DE ELLA ESTA MI FAMILIA.ADEMAS YO LE PREGUNTO: QUE HACE USTED AQUI??? POR QUE NO SE QUEDO ALLA PARA "TUMBAR A FIDEL"
HASTA LA VICTORI SIEMPRE...COMPAÑERO.
Quite frankly, the characterization of Cuban political leaders as "social parasites" seems rather accurate. What I see are a small group of elites using Cuban workers for their own gain. Foreign companies come to the island, set up shop with the regime and charge said companies a wage for each worker. The vast majority of the wage goes to the government, while only a paltry sum goes to the worker. The elites then receive their perks - i.e. those nicer newer model VWs that the military leaders often drive, the nicer residences, etc, etc, and whatever cut Fidel and Raul are currently skimming. They get the better hospital care, the ability to wander around the better beaches etc (when the system of tourism apartheid - which has been ended - was still in effect). They live off the everyday worker. It's an honest label in my opinion. The entire system is just incredibly offensive. Fidel has created an enormous system of haves (government) and have-nots (everyday citizens). It's anything but egalitarian.
Am I biased? Yes, but only because that was my experience. And to sit back and watch while so many people call the system in Cuba a great experiment in egalitarianism is simply disgusting. Lots of big talk in Cuba - "Battle of Ideas," etc, etc - but in the end - it's all talk.
What I will NEVER agree with is this nonsense:
"They sometimes refer to them as people without "honor" or "dignity.""
What we need to remember however, is that the vast majority of exiles don't see a difference between the different generations of exiles. The only experiences I've ever witnessed between old-guard exiles and the newer generations, is a welcoming and a feeling of "what can we do to help you."
There are of course those who feel that they - as the old guard - are of a higher caliber, and I think this is normal for any exile group - the "I was first" mentality. As I said before however, this is a much smaller percentage than I feel some folks try to make it out to be.
Cheers and thanks for enabling comments.
Regards,
-Anatasio
Thanks for leaving your comments Anastasio.
I agree entirely with what you wrote. The descriptor "social parasites" can in fact be used to describe almost anyone, if you try hard enough. It's a very general term and easy to rationalize.
What bothers me most is Bonachea's comments IN CONTEXT. The context is a long history of militancy in exile whose hostile rhetoric can create an environment where aggression and violence would be justified or rationalized. It can lead to people referring to others with offensive language and cause a provocation into violence. This should cause concern for anyone who wants to live in a community where we first respect others and leave hostility on the margins.
The comment by Bonachea saying "the total cleansing of" is also shocking. It can easily be manipulated to refer to the worst kind of actions. It certainly is incompatible with any principle that respects peace.
Concerning the relationships between different generations within the Cuban community, it was never the frame of reference for Bonachea's comments.
The correct frame was differences between waves of Cuban migrants, who share different attitudes than the "exilio historico." The point here is the focus on different attitudes, not age.
It's plain that Cuban exile militancy is not compatible with changing attitudes, and it is deeply offensive to the militant when those new attitudes and opinions come from within the Cuban community.
Post a Comment