The Cuban Bishops’ Conference has just announced the launch of their own blog, www.creerencuba.org (”Believing in Cuba”), a space for Catholics to “enrich their experience of God” through the Internet. Reverend Jose Felix Perez indicated that this blog was a way for the Church in Cuba to acknowledge the advancement of digital culture and its important role in people’s lives. Still, it’s not clear how much reach the blog can have in Cuba, where only a small fraction of islanders are online and Internet access is slow and prohibitively expensive for most.

What importance does the launch of a Catholic Church blog have in such a context?

1. Human rights and media freedom groups have called on Havana to allow broader Internet access, and this is one example of a move in that direction.
2. A senior Vatican official asked the Cuban government in November to allow the Church more greater access to media and Internet, indicating its importance as a way to reach the faithful. Their allowance to launch a blog is a sign of better relations between the state and the Church, which were strained for years but have improved considerably since Pope John Paul II toured the island in 1998.
3. Since the government tends to distrust most bloggers in Cuba, labeling them “foreign mercenaries,” the apolitical blog of the Catholic Church could help change the stigma that currently plagues Internet and blogging in Cuba.

The point: the practical impact of this new blog might not be huge (readership and participation from the island will likely be low), but it is at the very least a signal of the expansion of Internet participation and an inherent acknowledgment of its potential future on the island.

In a socialist state like Cuba, part of the grounding theory is that each citizen feels and responds to a moral imperative to work, to take only what he needs, and to help ensure that all are provided for (hopefully) equally. Applying this principle to the case of energy consumption then, one has the responsibility to turn off lights when they are not needed and to lower use of air conditioning and other such energy consuming devices because energy is a scarce resource that must be shared—and thus used sparingly so that all may enjoy some.

Indeed, at first glance this looks like the situation in Cuba right now: the government has pushed energy conservation as an absolute necessity as it tries to reduce the country’s consumption of these foreign supplies. And people have responded. According to Reuters, some neighborhoods are taking turns abstaining for an hour at a time in the evenings. Brigades of school children knock on doors reminding residents of the pressing need to save energy.

But at some point it becomes difficult to measure the effect the moral imperative has on reducing energy consumption versus the effect that can be attributed to simple self-preservation. In this case we might well be dealing with the latter. Cubans are scrambling to improve their record of energy consumption in order to avoid the dreaded blackouts that plagued the country in the 1990s, and which the Cuban state threatened to reinstate if voluntary actions could not make the desired improvement.

This way, life continues on with only minor inconveniences. Production has apparently not been significantly affected by the energy cuts. Reuters quotes one citizen in today’s piece as saying, ”The choice is simple. Save or suffer blackouts, and that is a situation nobody wants to live through again.”

Today’s post will let novelist Jose Manuel Prieto—a Cuban told by the government to leave the country in the 1980s—speak about the Cuban revolution in his own words, which are eloquent, insightful and straightforward. These passages were taken from his piece in The Nation today, “Travels by Taxi,” which itself is an adaptation of a much longer manuscript of Prieto’s.

—

There’s the need, in speaking of the negative impact the Cuban Revolution has had on so many things, to speak also of all its achievements, how good it has been for so many other things. It’s so inadequate to paint it as the blackest, the most terrible, the most murderous—for it isn’t any of those things, not at all, though for far too many years it has always ended up doing harm. It’s impossible to strip the Cuban Revolution of the reasons for its great popularity, its hard-won fame. There are touches of genius present throughout the work of the Cuban Revolution and in its very conception…

And it’s not been mere thievery. That is one of the first things that must be said about the Cuban Revolution. Neither Fidel Castro nor the Cuban Revolution is a vulgar plunderer whose only goal is self-enrichment. On the contrary, I see an entirely different trait: a deep and terrible idealism.

Who hasn’t seen this? Which of its opponents hasn’t wished for the Cuban Revolution to be worse than it truly is, for the greater weight and forcefulness of his argument against it, to avoid confusion and keep from having, in the midst of his diatribe, to acknowledge its better intentions?…

The unusual spectacle of the greatest and most powerful country on earth, the United States, caught up in open war with so diminutive an adversary, like a wild animal in captivity, the astounded villagers crowding around to poke at it through the bars of its cage: that alone has captured the imagination of our contemporaries.

It has enabled Fidel Castro to present his triumph as the greatest, the most unlikely, the most consummate. It’s been an enormous contribution to his cause, a wellspring of strength he’s never stopped drawing on for all these years, a subsidy no less rich and generous than the Russians’ very real millions. And the Russians contributed voluntarily, in full awareness; the United States involuntarily, pathetically, ineptly…

It’s something like a heroic epic, with very bad bad guys and very good good guys, its narrative technique quite primitive but magisterially in tune with its time, a poem of rebellion against the grown-ups in which a few young men (not particularly important that this side happens to be Caribbean) rebel against their elders (very important indeed that this side is the United States). Deeply resonating through the capitals of Europe, with all the symbolic charge of leaving home and going out into the open air of the hippie encampment, well in advance of the upheavals of 1968 and perhaps one of the secret reasons for them.

And for those who are confused by the unswerving loyalty of so many Latin American intellectuals, so many writers of genius, to Fidel Castro, let me explain. They see him for what he is: the greatest fabulist of his time, an outstanding performance artist whose famous speeches are the most considerable part of the performance. The writers know he is as great as they are for this one achievement: his discovery of how to cease being a provincial in the arena of world politics, his strategy of effectively embedding himself in world literature (or in the world’s fictions)…

His admirers forgive him—and with them, the whole world forgives him—for having taken an entire country prisoner, for the terrible impoverishment of its life, all in the service of a confrontation they saw as far too costly for their own countries, a confrontation that a public not silenced by the pretext of an eternal state of emergency, not automatically accused of giving in to the Enemy, wouldn’t hesitate to condemn…

There’s been year after year of unbearable scarcity, the eternal backdrop for a population struggling to live in utmost deprivation. For whatever reason it may be, whatever reason you or anyone else wants to put forth—beginning, naturally, with the US embargo—the Cuban Revolution is a resounding failure.

—

Prieto’s article makes several points that I do not necessarily agree with, but in the meantime he has produced a very interesting and worthwhile article.

The complete piece is here.

Over the past few days, an overlap between two of our Cuba blog posts has highlighted one of the most defining problems of the relationship between the United States and Cuba—a lack of communication. First, Cuba announced that it would hold military exercises nationwide in the coming week (see Wednesday’s post). Then U.S. President Barack Obama exchanged notes with Yoani Sanchez (see Thursday’s post), emphasizing in response to one of her questions: “The United States has no intention of using military force in Cuba.”

Then yesterday, the Cuban military clarified its exercises scheduled for this week as an effort to boost preparedness against any future attack by the United States, saying: “It is a necessity of the first order given the political-military situation that now defines relations between Cuba and the empire.”

What military situation? Cuba is no longer considered a threat to the United States (the idea has been ludicrous for some time) and the current administration has done nothing near to threatening invasion or intervention to pursue its goals in Cuba. In fact, Washington has emphasized a number of times that it intends to put pressure on the island only through dialogue and at most through a continuation of the embargo, but hopes to make progress past this anachronistic apparatus if Cuba will also agree to cede a bit of ground in the 50-years-ongoing debate over democracy and human rights on the island.

If the two sides cannot have open dialogue, then both will continue to be able to perpetuate misinformation about the other. And this creates what is perhaps the largest rift between the two countries.

Today, Yoani Sánchez, the Cuban dissident blogger of world fame, posted unbelievable news.

President Barack Obama had answered the seven questions she sent to him—questions that she said keep her awake at night wondering about the future of her country. That future, after all, is so closely intertwined with the choices made by the administrations in Washington and Havana. The full text of her questions and his answers are on her blog (here), but here’s a sample Q&A:

Question 4 (Yoani Sanchez): Raúl Castro has said publicly that he is open to discuss any topic with the U.S. provided there is mutual respect and a level playing field. Is Raúl asking too much?

Answer (Barack Obama): For years, I have said that it is time to pursue direct diplomacy, without preconditions, with friends and foes alike. I am not interested, however, in talking for the sake of talking. In the case of Cuba, such diplomacy should create opportunities to advance the interests of the United States and the cause of freedom for the Cuban people.

We have already initiated a dialogue on areas of mutual concern - safe, legal, and orderly migration, and reestablishing direct mail service. These are small steps, but an important part of a process to move U.S.-Cuban relations in a new and more positive, direction. Achieving a more normal relationship, however, will require action by the Cuban government.

The Committee to Protect Journalists reports: “Sánchez, who has received several international awards and blogs regularly for the U.S.-based Huffington Post, said she was satisfied by Obama’s responses, which she described as cautious, moderate, and diplomatic. She has also sent a series of questions to Raúl Castro, but hasn’t received a response yet.”

A response from President Castro is not very likely, since the Cuban state does not tend to trust Sánchez. Just one week ago, she was detained and roughed up by Cuban security agents, who accused her of being a “counter-revolutionary.” In that context, the Castro regime might take Obama’s exchange with her as the wrong kind of signal.

Indeed, Obama’s choice to respond to Yoani Sanchez directly when he will not to speak to the Cuban government might well be received poorly by Cuban officials. But in reality, I think this was an effective tool: he spoke through a dissident that openly spread on-line his message—one that contains no malice and instead indicates willingness to engage Cuba further—and he therefore effectively communicated to the Cuban state the answers to her important questions (answers that are valuable to them, as well). And in so doing he made a tenuous connection among the three parties: alienated “dissident,” Washington and Havana.

Still, this is not necessarily how Obama’s move will be interpreted.

The Cuban Defense Ministry announced that for November 26-28, the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionaria (Revolutionary Armed Forces), Interior Ministry and other national defense actors will perform nationwide military exercises. The tactical exercises will require, for example, troops movement, air flights, and explosions.

Called “Bastión 2009,” the exercise is meant to ensure that Cuba is optimally prepared to defend its territory—a high priority ever since the Bay of Pigs invasion of 1961, even during difficult economic times. The three day exercises will ring in National Defense Day on November 29.

I am reminded of a Cuban blogger Claudia Cadelo’s post of February 2009 about posters that adorn restaurants and cafes in Havana, advising Cubans (among other things) that “causing the greatest possible number of casualties on the active enemy forces is our main goal.”

As Claudia responded: “[The militaristic mindset encouraged by the Cuban government] makes me wonder if we’re at war and against whom.”

The cover shown to the right is only the beginning of the problem that Miami-Dade County residents identified with the book Vamos a Cuba. The school board in that county decided to remove the book from schools because it contained omissions about life in Cuba under Castro. Happy Cuban children, children who ”eat, work, and go to school like you do,” as the book told American kids, were decided to be a misrepresentation of the truth.

When the issue went to court, a judge initially ruled the move unconstitutional, but when they appealed, the 11th U.S. Circuit of Appeals decided that Vamos a Cuba was, indeed, such an inaccurate picture of life in Cuba that the school board could legally remove it from the shelves. And when the U.S. Supreme Court declined to take up the case on Monday, it thereby upheld this ruling.

First of all, why isn’t the answer providing more books on Cuba to children, with varied perspectives? The defense argues that Vamos a Cuba does not present one possible perspective, it presents factually inaccurate statements that would give children the wrong idea entirely about life on the island.

OK, maybe.

But then what about teaching children the value of accepting and connecting with people of all nations and cultures? This book is part of a series of 24 books introducing young readers to different countries. The point is that people everywhere have fundamental similarities: failing to mention Fidel Castro is an unrelated issue. Were the book a political statement (instead of a book teaching kids tolerance and the value of exploration and connecting with people of all origins), perhaps Miami-Dade would have a better basis for getting upset.

The press has recently alighted upon the subject of campaign funding: its origins and its direct effect on Congressional votes with respect to Cuba policy. A report released by the Washington, DC-based group called Public Campaign shows fairly straightforward timelines: lawmakers vote for easing restrictions on Cuba; those same lawmakers receive donations from a pro-embargo political action committee (PAC); the next vote sees them voting in favor of the embargo. And over the last seven years, groups supporting the embargo have made over $10.77 million in congressional campaign contributions.

Of course, as the embargo-backers in question are arguing, there are many groups that channel money to politicians who support their views. They’re being singled out unfairly.

For me, that does not clear the air. The connection between politics and money is problematic in itself (and subject for someone else’s blog, perhaps), but in this case particularly so: Cuba policy is now essentially the policy of a minority in the United States, and the fact that money is an influential part of what keeps it going is disturbing.

Public Campaign cites 18 lawmakers that changed sides on the issue following a donation from the pro-embargo PAC, including, for example, Republican Representative Sam Graves:

Graves cast seven votes between 2003 and 2005 to ease the trade embargo and other sanctions on Cuba.

Then on three subsequent Cuban trade votes, he withdrew his backing and opposed lifting the sanctions, according to the report.

Since 2004, the five-term lawmaker from Tarkio and a member of the House Agriculture Committee, has received $8,000 from the U.S.-Cuba Democracy Political Action Committee, campaign records show.

The entire Kansas City article is here. Also see the Associated Press‘ take on the issue, that of the AFP, and see the Public Campaign report itself here.

U.S. Science Group Seeks Cooperation with Cuba

(From Reuters) A group led by the head of the United States’ biggest science organization is in Cuba this week to discuss ways to rekindle scientific cooperation as U.S.-Cuba relations slowly improve under U.S. President Barack Obama. Nobel Prize-winning scientist Peter Agre, president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), told Reuters on Wednesday the group had met with government officials and Cuban scientists, all of them enthusiastic about doing science together.

The best opportunities for cooperative research appear to lie in medicine, where Cuba’s emphasis on public health and vaccine development could prove valuable to the United States, and the environment, particularly shared resources such as the Gulf of Mexico and migratory wildlife, he and delegation members said.

Can baseball help bring US and Cuba together?

(From Associated Press) “Pingpong diplomacy” thawed relations between the United States and China in 1971. Can “baseball diplomacy” help do the same for the U.S. and Cuba? Americans ranging from 12-year-old ballplayers to softballing senior citizens are visiting the communist island to engage in their own kind of field work, and there’s talk of another trip by a major league team.

Baltimore Orioles owner Peter Angelos, who staged exhibition games with the Cuban national team in Havana and Baltimore a decade ago, told The Associated Press that he hopes to so again next spring. Two groups of baseball youngsters from Florida are planning to visit next year as well.

This weekend, four teams from a Massachusetts slow-pitch softball senior league will travel to Cuba for a series of games. ”It’s got to help diplomacy. Sports does that,” said Stu Gray, commissioner of the Eastern Massachusetts Senior Softball Association and head of this weekend’s delegation.

The association has designed a logo for the trip featuring U.S. and Cuban flags crossing over a softball.

Anne Louise Bardach wrote a piece on “Fidel Castro’s Long Goodbye” for the Los Angeles Times today, including a note comparing the caudillo/dictator qualities of Fidel and Francisco Franco. Her interesting comment is excerpted here:

Castro’s reluctant leave-taking—with its periodic near-finales—fits into a long tradition of Hispanic caudillos or dictators. Consider, for example, the life—and death—of Francisco Franco, Spain’s dictator of almost 40 years. Both Castro’s father and Franco hailed from the rugged northern countryside of Spain, a region renowned for its fierce and stubborn citizenry. And notwithstanding divergent political ideologies—Franco was a zealous anti-communist—the two men had a good deal in common. Both were willing to forge unpalatable and unpopular alliances with totalitarian states to shore up their power—Franco with Nazi Germany and Castro with the Soviet Union.

And Franco’s shrouded last days neatly foreshadowed Castro’s. Franco became grievously ill in 1974 and was forced to turn over his rule—”temporarily,” he insisted—to Prince Juan Carlos. Castro also initially ceded control to his brother only “temporarily.” Like Castro, Franco had an unexpected recovery, though his lasted only a year before he died at the age of 82.

Read the full article here.