(Ernesto Cardenal)
Who can deny that in Cuba there are a large number of prisoners suffer from more severe prison conditions that exist today in the world?
For them there day and night, because they have them blindfolded in complete darkness. We also have covered their ears, and keep them in perpetual silence. And they are deprived of any sensation of touch, because their hands are covered with a kind of gloves. There are hundreds of prisoners whose names were not released, and nobody knows what they are accused, not have been tried, much less convicted, and have no defense, and are serving a sentence infinite, because it has been terminated.
These are prisoners in Cuba who are not imprisoned by Fidel Castro, but are prisoners of President Bush at Guantanamo. They are in individual cages, and dressed in red suit we've all seen, but they did not know better. As prisoners of Bush, not Fidel Castro, the U.S. press does not say anything about them. And I wonder if the European Union will protest these prisoners in Cuba. Has the United States demanded peremptorily that release, as Cuba has demanded the immediate release of 75 prisoners?
Another question I ask is whether Cuba is protected from terrorism, and replied that of course. In Cuba it is protected terrorism by President Bush, through a law called the Cuban Adjustment: a law that is not only Cuban American, and is applied only to Cuba, and not to any other country in the world. Under the law, who comes to America, having hijacked a plane or a boat in Cuba, is granted ipso facto be entitled to residence and work is given immediately. The Cubans do not give visa to enter the United States normally, but if they do illegally are given this award. Is not that promote terrorism in Cuba? Although it is not that promotes Fidel but Bush.
And coming from anywhere else in the world to live in the United States called an immigrant, but those arriving from Cuba are called exiles. There are Cuban immigrants in the United States. If you are anywhere else in the world are immigrants, but all are Cuban exiles in the United States.
A common practice of American power is distorting language. Is to falsify the words, changing some names for others. In fact that is blatantly lying. For example, instead of conquering word use the word free. Now just released a new little word to apply to Cuba, and is the de-dissidents. In itself the meaning of this word is to dissent, disagree, think otherwise.
But this word applies to the conspiracy, promoting subversion, and seek to overthrow the Cuban regime. -Promote the transition-is another way they speak. I wonder: who protest when in any other country (other than Cuba) imprison those who want to overthrow the regime?
I recently read a criticism that was made to Cuba because two Chilean senators wanted to get on an official visit to meet there with "dissidents", and were told they could come as tourists, but not on an official visit for this purpose. And I wonder: What would the United States visa to someone who asked to meet with subversive?
I've also read that one of these 75-dissidents "who are imprisoned in Cuba, President Bush wrote a letter congratulating him on his heroic actions. Is not this a confirmation of the crime charged the accused Cuban subversion, when it welcomes the greatest enemy of Cuba, was busy during the war in Iraq? Another strange thing here was that the U.S. president will declare the Cuban prisoner he and his wife had him in your prayers. "Laura and I continue to pray for you," he said.
I wonder what it would look if Fidel Castro, one who was imprisoned in another country for conspiring, he wrote saying he was praying for him: My personal comment is that at least in the case of prayer, I would more confidence in the prayers of Fidel Castro than Bush's. Regarding the ethical problem of the death penalty, my first observation is as follows: It is true that the Bible is written provision shall not kill. But it is also true that in the same book of the Bible where is this provision, detailing how death should be applied to those who have transgressed the precept of not killing. I am among those who are against the death penalty, or rather I am of those who prefer not to apply to anyone that penalty. And Fidel is among those who think this way, as he said in his speech on April 25, 2003, which explains the reasons why, exceptionally, has been applied now in Cuba for three people.
And again my question is this: If someone (as an honest intellectual the European Union) to protest the execution of three people in Cuba who attempted kidnapping should not protest further incurred by the 165 executions in Texas while Bush was governor of that state. Is it ethical to protest so vehemently when it comes to Cuba, and not protest anything when it comes to the U.S.? With the United States aggravating that there are executed mostly black, and in many cases are also children and the mentally ill.
few days ago I saw in the newspaper the news of the death sentence of six people in Guatemala, and it was a tiny 6-inch news square, and after that story appeared I have not seen any protest in this newspaper or any other. And another of my questions is: How true is it that you are against the death penalty as if it shoots six in Guatemala nobody says anything, and if it shoots three in Cuba there is a global scandal of unbelievable proportions ? Is it not against the death penalty that moves the world press, but against Cuba and Fidel Castro? and intellectuals as intellectuals who should be at least somewhat intelligent, have not noticed?
According to Amnesty International report on death sentences last year in the world were 1560. None of the executions was in Cuba and how many there were protests by those 1560 performances? As now there were three in Cuba, has been the avalanche of protest. Are the intellectuals who were used by the Cuban campaign have not noticed?
The three executions in Cuba and put in prison 75 people have been in very special circumstances, and those who are honest they can not ignore. This is a
country is at war, and the danger of being overrun. The Bush administration, at the time that carried out the war with Iraq, has declared that Cuba was on the list of military objectives susceptible to invasion and mass destruction. And anti-Castro Cubans in the United States launched the Iraq war slogan of today, tomorrow Cuba.
Fidel fully explained in a speech to the people of Cuba and the world the risk because I was crossing Cuba, and what the reasons were.
been forced to take drastic measures, as was the imprisonment of 75 conspirators in the pay of the U.S. diplomatic mission in Havana, and the execution of three hijackers who had been encouraged by the law that gives host United States. I wanted listen to that speech in Managua, as yet unaware of the reasons that Cuba had resorted to such drastic measures, and could not hear, because the speech transmitted via satellite from Havana was interfered. Can we doubt what is the government that interfered satellite transmission? Is it not wrong for a person who is accusing the world not be allowed to defend in the international radio? Besides being a violation of this right to information we have all peoples of the earth. This alone should be enough for those who honestly spoke out against Cuba would have realized that the view public is being manipulated by the same media that have been manipulated against Cuba for decades. This has not been but a deception. Fidel Castro in his speech criticized internationally explains that he did not favor the application of capital punishment, and for three years in Cuba does not, and now this time applied by the threats of war that is taking Cuba.
The same people who condemn Cuba at the lack of freedom of expression are those that prevented the satellite broadcast of a speech by a head of state. And the same as accusing Cuba of rights violation human, were those committed in Iraq at the time the violation of human rights is biggest in the world has seen since the days of Hitler. And condemning Cuba for three executions were carried out in Baghdad a destruction that had not had that city since the thirteenth century, when the Mongol invasion. And they declared that they were willing to do the same in other countries, including Cuba.
My questions are simply those of a newspaper reader.
Ernesto Cardenal, Nicaragua (1925 -)
PostedNew Journal, June 25, 2003 in Managua, Nicaragua.
0 comments:
Post a Comment