Speeches and contexts on the normalization of relations between Cuba and U.S.

The context of that speech leaves no room for doubt, because one cannot talk about normalization if tying laws, fining agencies, persecutions, sanctions, etc…still remain in place against the other party which the first supposedly wishes to begin a normal relationship with.

In this case, there is a clear consequence and correspondence between the discourse and its context; they are mutually presupposed.

President Raul Castro also says that the territory occupied by the US naval base in Guantanamo should be returned; it’s so clear that it forms part of the sovereignty of Cuba, which is admitted by United States in its own logic that has led them to turn that base into a jail: those prisoners should be there because it’s better to have them “outside” the country; that is, in Cuba. They do not want them on US soil. It’s logical that the said illegally occupied area be returned if they expect to normalize relations.

The same coherence can be found in Cuban stand regarding the ill-named Radio and TV Marti. If one party (United States) really wants to normalize relations, it cannot violate the radio-electronic space of the other party (Cuba), nor maintain government institutions officially devoted to defame and try to overthrow those whom they wish to normalize relations with. So, Cuban discourse about the cessation of such type of subversive project against its national sovereignty is entirely consistent with the political context of a normalization of relations.

It makes no sense that in the present day there remains in place what is simply a platform of advertising and propaganda in favor of those who seek to destroy the existing political and social order in Cuba. It’s a violation and must stop. In this case, I repeat, both disourse and context are fully complemented; now let us see how this discourse-context relationship behaves on the American side.

Barack Obama says that changes must reach Cuba hopelessly. That’s the disocourse. The real context is that President Obama, however much one sympathizes with him and prefers him among other extremist and right-wing politicians, is just trying to achieve through different means the same aim of bringing down socialism, before the obvious failure of the 56-year old policy toward Cuba,

We should take this into account as context to understand the speech by the Cuban president as regards as that we must defend and preserve socialism. We should be careful about where Cuba would end up if the other party tries to lead it into a wild capitalism. Cuba can improve its socialism, make changes, but cannot accept that to normalize relations it must become a capitalist country where inequality and market relationships without values, without justice and human solidarity prevail.

That path of prompting anti-socialist changes is being reached by some new figures who used to speak against Cuba openly until recent days but now, since they have no other choice, they ask for the lifting of the blockade and promote economic relations with the island. That’s why, a panel sponsored by El Nuevo Herald (not even by The Miami Herald) in its own headquarters next October 6 to promote investments and tourism in Cuba has drawn my attention very much.

To my surprise, among the panel’s attendees will be a person who sponsored sanctions of all sorts against Cuba, like Federal Senator Mel Martinez, now as Chairman of the Southeast U.S. and Latin America region for J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. Along with Martinez the panel brings together people of different nuances such as Pedro Freyre, Chairman of Ackerman LLP International Practice; Kendra Guild, Program Director at Marazul Charters; Arnold Donald, Executive Director of Carnival Corp (whose subsidiary, Fathom, will set sail to Cuba starting in the spring of 2016) and Scott Laurence, Vice President for Airliner Planning of JetBlue Airways.

It’s surprising that El Nuevo Herald is promoting business forums in Cuba, when it has shown an inflexible and obsolete stand in that issue until very recently. It seems that in modern times this Miami newspaper has lost its editorial policy; or maybe, as peer Alvaro Fernandez says, it never had it because it only approached the ephemeral events of the moment.

This is the discourse, which El Nuevo Herald appropriates now by necessity; but the subtext, let us not deceive ourselves, seeks subversion through new open paths in the face of the obvious failure of violent confrontation.

As a listener of “La tarde se mueve” said, that panel on the future of tourism and business in Cuba summoned by the newspaper of Miami’s right-wing is like if the devil were a saint.

Google has a discourse to bring Internet to Cuba too; but, what have been the context and subtext of Google’s performance?: surveillance of its citizens, cooperation with the secret services, having been acted as a promoter and supporter of the so-called Arab Springs. So, we cannot trust statements and good intentions naively.
 
Cuba’s discourse and context is socialism; are the ideas of Fidel and Raul. Nobody should expect, either before or after 2018, that it can surrender the sovereignty it has managed to defend above sellout models. Cuba did not yield before hard blows and it will not yield neither today nor tomorrow before soft blows.

Cubasi Translation Staff