But His Head Looks Wierd [Updated]

That was a short coma huh? Argentinian President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner (photo, far right) earlier this week met with Fidel Castro, later telling reporters that both talked for about an hour together and that Fidel was "doing well."

That meeting with Fidel took place on Wednesday, and earlier today the Argentinian government released a photo of that meeting. Some are now saying its been manipulated.

Just last week rumors of Fidel's health reached near hysteria. Local paper Diario Las Americas reported that Fidel Castro was in a coma, Cuba analyst Andy Gomez from ICCAS said that "high sources" from Washington were saying Fidel was "gravely ill," exile leaders in Miami held an emergency meeting on Saturday to prepare for a possible "great change" inside Cuba, and Val Prieto from the Babalu Blog couldn't decide which wine to celebrate with.

This kind of thing seems to occur regularly in Miami, just like it did in 2007. That year the rumors of Fidel Castro's death had also reached similar proportions. Strangely, even before Fidel Castro underwent surgery in 2006, these kind of rumors existed. As far back as 1998, a Cuban exile doctor by the name of Enrique Huertas told Diario Las Americas:

"the health of Cuba's tyrant is smashed, without possible treatment that can adequately resolve his situation... he has an undetermined cancerous problem, but with signs of metastasis, whose effects have been seen in his television appearances in recent days."

Yup, more than a decade ago!

So, Fidel Castro now reappears in a photo after several signs allowed some to suspect the worse, and now they can't believe it. Writers for the Babalu blog agree that the picture looks fake, and Radio Mambi's Ninoska Perez-Castellon believes it too has been manipulated.

According to Perez-Castellon, Fidel Castro may be alive, but the head of Fidel on the picture does not match. She believes that Fidel probably looks far worse, and that the Cuban government most likely "photoshopped" a healthier-looking head on Fidel. Perez-Castellon recalls Fidel's two prior photos (shown above) were "he's skeletal. He's even missing hair in his beard. And now, all of a sudden, hair is covering his ears!"[MP3]

But compare the three pictures above. You can view them closely here, here and here. In my opinion, Fidel Castro looks identical in all of them. Sure his hair looks shorter in some, but (newsflash) hair grows! And Fidel's beard looks the same. So, I'm thinking, is Ninoska Perez-Castellon and the writers at Babalu so biased its affecting their visual perception? Must be. But, they are not alone.

I just watched the 11PM news and Telemundo51 interviewed Jaime Suchlicki, from ICCAS, and he said that Fidel Castro looked "mummified" in the photo. Telemundo also interviewed Andy Gomez, also from ICCAS, and he said that Fidel looks very weak because in the photo he's using President Fernandez de Kirchner to hold himself up. Well, they may be right, or they may be totally wrong.

There's only a few pictures to analyze, and in all of them Fidel looks the same. To suggest anything about his health condition from so little evidence could lead to misinformation.

For example, in 2006, after Fidel Castro transferred power to Raul after undergoing intestinal surgery, Jaime Suchlicki told local news reporters: "I'm more inclined thinking about either that [Fidel is] so deteriorated or that he's dead." You see, Suchlicki was wrong then, and he may be wrong now.

I personally don't have much confidence in the work that comes from the Institute of Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS).

So, in conclusion... You can believe that Fidel Castro is in reality a walking zombie whose photos have all been deceptively altered (for who know how long) by the Cuban government. And, that President Fernandez de Kirchner (not to mention all others who have visited Fidel Castro) is lying to the world because she was perhaps bribed by Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, all of whom are part of an elaborate "political marketing operation" (as local Spanish-language news station AmericaTeVe put it) to simply settle a few tired rumors.

OR... You can believe that Fidel Castro is fine and still recuperating.

(Boy, being a militant against Fidel Castro is exhausting.)

[Update: Along the Malecon blog has the new Fidel photo in high-resolution, and additional background on its delivery to President Fernandez de Kirchner.]

The Brookings Conference

This past Wednesday, the Brookings Institution hosted a conference about Cuba called "Cuba 2008: Opportunities and Challenges." So far, I haven't found any reports or summaries of the event, except from the US-financed Radio Martí. The report by Radio Martí on this event is very short and leaves one with little information on this day-long, multi-panel conference. Once an official report is released I will make sure to provide a link.

According to the Radio Martí report (in Spanish), "despite there being divergent opinions" among the twenty panelists involved (who come from various backgrounds), "the majority agreed that the final goal should be that democracy in Cuba be decided by Cubans on the island."

The day-long conference was made up of four panels, each discussing different topics about Cuba at different scheduled times throughout the day. The panelists ranged from Jaime Suchlicki, director of UM's Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies (ICCAS, which receives some funding from the US government), to John McAuliff, executive director of the Fund for Reconciliation and Development.

Radio Martí does mention one point where "some experts" did have "divergent opinions," such as whether the democratic transition in Cuba will be a long process or a short one.

Radio Martí quotes Phil Peters saying that while public debates are taking place on the island, it is still not known if this will lead to significant democratic changes. Peters also tells Radio Martí that the opposition in Cuba have strong ideas in favor of democracy, but that we must also consider if Raul of Fidel remain in charge before making a judgment. As a result, Peters sees no political changes "on the horizon" in Cuba.

Radio Martí then quotes Andy Gomez, another researcher from UM's ICCAS who participated in the Brookings conference, saying: "Myself, as a Cuban, born in Cuba, the first thing I want is democracy tomorrow." Gomez believes that "we" (the US) need to continue our support of Cuban civil society and help "sustain it and maintain it."

Gomez has gone on record to say that the US "should've probably lifted the embargo when the Soviet Union fell apart, and let everything go in, particularly people with new ideas, and give people the opportunity, those in Cuba, to hear how the rest of the world was going on." But, Gomez now supports the US embargo as potential political leverage in demanding "at least three conditions" from the Cuban government: "Respect for human rights, the release of all political prisoners, and give the Cuban people, within the first 18 months to two years, the opportunity to choose who they want as their next leader." Gomez has also stated that once Raul Castro is seen as the definitive new leader of Cuba "[he's] got six months to a year to bring about some positive change. I'm not talking political reform. [Rather] Minimal economic reforms. If he doesn't, then I dare to say, that you can have a large migration out of Cuba."

Among the other panelists were political analysts who oppose the US embargo like Vicki Huddleston, Julia Sweig, Carmelo Mesa-Lago, Riordan Roett and others.

[Photo above of Havana]

We Debate the Embargo

I was listening to Radio Mambi yesterday, when all of a sudden everybody's three favorite members of Congress (Ileana, Lincoln and Mario) called in. (What a surprise!) It's been two weeks since President Bush gave his Cuba speech, and Mario Diaz-Balart just couldn't help but recall how fantastic it was. It will go down in history just like Reagan's "Tear down this Wall!" speech says Mario. (What a vision!) No question, Mario will be telling his grand-kids about that glorious day on October 24, 2007, when President Bush heralded the end of the evil Cuban regime.

Back in reality, a few days after that magnificent monologue of the 24th, the pages of the Orlando Sentinel was preparing for a debate. To-the-point commentator George Diaz kicked it off on the 26th by writing that Bush's "[t]ough talk only gives Castro more ammunition to load the gun, point it at the U.S. and launch into one of his infamous diatribes... Cuba vs. the U.S. has been the longest-running dysfunctional relationship in modern history, with our condolences to Pamela Anderson and her slew of soulmates... Playing tough hombre with Castro only fuels his arrogance and drives the Cuban people toward further hatred/distrust of the U.S."

On the 31st, Paolo Spadoni, who has written extensively [PDF] on the economic ties between the US and Cuba (arguing well that the US continues to be its own worst enemy in respect to its sanctions on the island), added his thoughts to the Sentinel on Bush's speech.

"Indeed, coming from a leader who has neglected the will of the international community for years, Bush's calls for a Cuba democracy fund will likely fall on deaf ears... On Tuesday [Oct. 30], the United Nations General Assembly held its annual vote on U.S. economic sanctions with respect to Cuba and overwhelmingly approved a resolution calling for an end to the 45-year-old embargo and objecting to U.S. laws and regulations compelling third countries to adhere to it... The reality is that many countries share U.S. concerns for democratic changes on the island but disagree with Washington over the best course of action to stimulate those changes... In short, if the White House is serious in its attempt to reach out to other countries, the appropriate way to proceed would be to devise a foreign policy that is more in line with the position of the rest of the world and less driven by domestic political considerations."

By Nov. 1st, surely after having read the various published commentaries on Bush's speech, the Sentinel decided to state their own position.

"The root of the anger and angst is a trade embargo now approaching a half-century. Nobody wants to blink first and make any concessions, all while blindly ignoring the best interests of each country... The next administration needs to dangle incentives such as access to international trade organizations and lifting the restrictive rules for travel and remittances. Doing so would allow the U.S. to strategically put all the pressure on Mr. Castro or, eventually, his successor... The new administration can offer sensible compromises in return for reforms in Cuba... It's all about inclusion, not isolation... The U.S. has been there, done that for nearly five decades. Common sense says it's time for the U.S. to bury the embargo, an ideological dinosaur that lost its roar long ago."

Obviously, these comments did not please some readers. Two letters to the Sentinel were published on the Tuesday [Nov. 6], one saying:

"In the past, multiple efforts made by the world community -- trading, foreign investing (billions of dollars in the tourist industry), cultural exchanges, visits by students, influential personalities, world leaders and more -- have brought no political reforms or even economic benefits to the enslaved people on the island... Are we to reward a tyrant who has no respect for human rights, property rights or human dignity and the rule of law? And also a man who supports and harbors world terrorists?... If the rest of the world decides to perpetuate the Castros' criminal regime by expressing its solidarity with the dictator and its antipathy toward the United States, too bad. We -- the 'shrinking' Cuban-American 'hard-liners' -- are very proud of the position taken by the president of our beloved United States of America."

The other:

"After reading about easing the isolation of Cuba by the United States, I came to the conclusion that your Editorial Board does not have a clear picture on the reality of the Cuban situation... There is a group of elites that have no desire to change the status quo. These are the Castros' close associates, and they enjoy all of the comforts of a modern society; they travel all over the world and have bank accounts in Switzerland. They realize that the end of the Castro regime will mean the end of their lifestyle, not to mention the likely retribution for all of the crimes committed against the Cuban people... With or without the embargo, change will not come to Cuba as long as the Castros and their accomplices continue to hold that country hostage."

To top it off, Manuel J. Coto, a urologist and long-time letter-writer and commentator to the Sentinel, added his thoughts yesterday:

"You are correct when you say the embargo provides Castro with a convenient boogeyman. But I would ask this: If the embargo were lifted, would we suddenly stop being the boogeyman?... I doubt that. The United Nations exists because of our generous funding -- and our Manhattan real estate -- and we have been its most reliable boogeyman, on bigger issues than Cuba, for decades... Ah, but we must appease the 'international community.' As your guest columnist Paolo Spadoni decreed, President Bush must create a policy that is 'more in line with the rest of the world.' Why? Aren't we entitled to our own position?...But since you're in the business of printing 'other views,' here's what I'd like to see: something historic. A true embargo, backed by the same outrage reserved for other brutal regimes in our collective past -- a policy more in line with how the world handled, say, apartheid in South Africa or Augusto Pinochet's Chile or Adolf Hitler's Germany... One of the commentaries grudgingly mentioned that President Bush is the leader of the Free World. And, yes, our next president will hold the same power. Let's ask the 'community' to rally behind its leader, no matter what he (or she) demands of Cuba."

Coto has been writing letters and special columns for the Orlando Sentinel since the early 90's, and has consistently assumed a hard-line position on Cuba. In 1997, he was opposed to the Pope's planned visit to the island.

"I am against the pope going to Cuba. Even more, I am against any of us going there during his visit. But as I witness the hypocrisy of this world, I can only hope that the pope will arrive in Havana with a miracle. I can only hope that, when he kisses the Cuban soil, he remembers his native country and he does for Cuba what he did for Poland. God save Cuba!"*

But, aside from a perceived arrogance, Coto understands well that the US embargo has not been effective like the other sanctions he mentions from history. Yesterday, he correctly stated that "[a]n equal share of the blame for the 'invisible embargo' goes to the exile community... for funding the [Cuban] government through remittances to families on the island." In this case he agrees with Spadoni, who in 2004 brilliantly argued [PDF] that "the United States has played and continues to play quite an important role in the Cuban economy. More specifically, significant amounts of hard currency have been channeled into the Cuban economy through U.S. visitors (especially Cuban-Americans), remittances sent by Cuban exiles to their families on the island, U.S. telecommunications payments to Cuba, U.S. food exports (sold in government-owned dollar stores), and U.S. investors who hold publicly traded shares of major foreign firms engaged in business activities with the government of Fidel Castro."

Many hard-liners know this truth, so they rationalize and say that the US embargo "has never truly existed." So, why do they fiercely defend it? In my opinion, the answer reveals an important aspect of being a hard-liner (be it against Cuba, Iran, North Korea, etc.). As Jaime Suchlicki, Emilio Bacardi Moreau professor of History and Director of UM's prestigious Institute for Cuban and Cuban-American Studies, put it in 2000 [PDF]:

"The lifting of the embargo now will be an important psychological victory for Castro. It would be interpreted as a defeat for U.S. policy and as an enforced acceptance of the Castro regime as a permanent neighbor in the Caribbean."

Coto, in 1997, came to the same conclusions:

"The only reason Castro wants so desperately to lift the embargo is that it would be his final victory over the United States. He would be the David who finally conquered Goliath. Lifting the embargo would be a colossal political defeat for the United States."*

I agree with the Sentinel editorial when they say that "the root of anger and angst" lies in the US embargo, which undoubtedly resonated on both sides. Surely, there are other important psychological elements here, such as the collective Cuban and Cuban exile memory, but this is perhaps one of the most important aspects of the US/Cuba conflict: a perceived defeat, by those who have wronged us.

Truly a traumatic obstacle, but not insurmountable. Our moral conscience should rise above our short-term satisfactions, and be willing to face a higher moral duty where opposing sides settle their differences, making a real sacrifice for the sake of future generations.

[Watch video of opposing views on the US embargo, courtesy of the Orlando Sentinel, featuring History professor Luis Martínez-Fernández Ph.D., and Urologist Manuel J. Coto M.D.]

*Orlando Sentinel, November 23, 1997, "Only a Miracle Can Save Cuba" by Manuel J. Coto

What's Behind US Policy Towards Cuba

Today, Phil Peters from the Cuban Triangle blog makes very good points after examining a recent essay published by UM's ICCAS. In the essay, titled "When Should the US Change Policy Towards Cuba?" [PDF], Jaime Suchlicki, director of ICCAS, and Jason Poblete provide arguments on how future policy with Cuba should continue, but suggest that in the meantime we just "stay the course." It's a very disturbing essay in my opinion, which I'm sure will be followed strictly by the Bush II administration.

The past work of Jaime Suchlicki, under ICCAS, has in fact been a very important part of current US policy towards Cuba. In fact, it is very likely that the US administration is relying heavily on the work of ICCAS.

Since 2002, ICCAS has received several millions of dollars from the US through USAID, who repeatedly renewed their grants in 2004. It's from this money that ICCAS created and extended the Cuba Transition Project (CTP).

By January 2004, and approaching the release of the first report by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba (CAFC), Roger Noriega, former Assistant Secretary of State for the Western Hemisphere, was praising the work of ICCAS. He said: "I applaud the efforts of Jaime Suchlicki and the CTP collaborators, who have devoted considerable energy to examining a number of these issues [for the CAFC]." The administrator of USAID was one of the official members of the first CAFC report.

One clear example that reveals how dependent the current administration is on the work of Suchlicki and ICCAS is shown in a US State Department Fact Sheet from 2003. The US Fact Sheet titled "Cuba's Foreign Debt" has a portion that is plagiarized from a 2000 report written by Jaime Suchlicki titled "The U.S. Embargo of Cuba" [PDF].

The 2000 report by Suchlicki outlines several arguments opposed to lifting the US Embargo "without meaningful changes in Cuba." Six specific arguments are plagiarized and presented in the 2003 US Fact Sheet.

- If U.S. tourists were allowed to visit Cuba, the Castro government will follow the same practices of the former Soviet Union and Eastern Europe. American tourists will have limited contact with Cubans, thus their influence would be limited. Travel would be controlled and channeled into the tourist resorts built in the island away from the major centers of population. (Cubans cannot stay at resort hotels or patronize them.) Tourists will be screened carefully to prevent “subversive propaganda” from entering the island.

Lifting the Embargo will:

- Strengthen the state enterprises because the money would flow into the businesses owned by the Cuban Government. (Most businesses are owned in Cuba by the state, and in all foreign investment the Cuban Government retains a partnership interest.)

- Lead to greater repression and control since Castro and the rest of the leadership would fear that U.S. influence would subvert the revolution and weaken the Communist Party’s hold on the Cuban people.

- Delay instead of accelerate a transition to democracy in Cuba.

-Guarantee the continuation of the current totalitarian structure.

- Send the wrong message to the enemies of the United States: that a foreign leader can seize U.S. properties without compensation; allow the use of his territory for the introduction of nuclear missiles aimed at the United States; execute thousands of his political enemies, including U.S. citizens; espouse terrorism and anti-U.S. causes throughout the world; and eventually, the United States will “forget and forgive” and reward the regime with tourism and investment.

But, I'm sure Suchlicki doesn't mind.

[Photo by the University of Miami]