As we commemorate (or ought to commemorate) international Victims of Communism Day, note that last week, a member of Republicans in France (RIF) was a guest on the English-language version of France 24 for a debate on the Cuba embargo: Why does the US continue to reject UN moves to end it?
Needless to say, in the debate produced by , and
Mark OWEN, the conservative was, as usual, outgunned, not least by the
"moderator" himself, but Erik Svane fired back at the drama queens with both barrels…Among the guests were :
- Anne Kraatz, Historian, US Foreign Affairs Expert
- Luis Miguel Cabrera, FRANCE 24 journalist
- Pascal Drouhaud, Associate Researcher in Latin America, Choiseul Institute
- Carlos Alzugaray, Cuban diplomat, former Cuban ambassador
- Erik Svane, Member of 'Republicans in France', Author of "La bannière Etalée"
Now 60 years old, the trade embargo on Cuba has been perpetuated primarily at the behest of Washington. When it was imposed in 1962, John F. Kennedy was US president and Fidel Castro was the revolutionary leader of Cuba: a Communist too close for comfort for Washington at the height of the Cold War. Arms sales to Havana had been banned four years earlier and Cuba leant on its major ally, the Soviet Union, to fill the gap. Our panel discusses why the embargo remains in place today and if there is any hope of lifting it.
Thanks to myself, notably for an article I wrote almost 20 years ago, Romanticists Overlook Allende's Many Faults, the second half of which included a discussion on Cuba, notably Gustavo Arcos Bergnes's New York Times article, A Prisoner Becomes A Warden…
Update: I should like to address a common criticism on Youtube — the alleged lack of compassion for eight sick Cuban kids.
First of all, I should like to reiterate the two or three opening points which I said about Cuba, namely, that contrary to what is regularly said about the Caribbean island, what is imposed upon it is not an American blockade but an American embargo. Meaning, that nothing prevents Havana from engaging in commerce with countries such as France, Denmark, Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia (indeed, it is hardly a secret that Moscow supported the régime for decades), Japan, China, etc (not least as a tourist destination).
Second, given the way that Uncle Sam's heartless imperialists are described by Havana's communists, you would think that (rather than be outraged) they would be delighted — positively delighted — that none of the capitalist pigs' despicable products come to pollute the minds of the Cuban people.
Third, the many arguments charging the Yanqui imperialists as responsible for Cuban citizens' misery are moot, given that there are exceptions to Washington's embargo, namely for humanitarian reasons, i.e., in the very fields of (wait for it…) food and medicine. Indeed, as it happens, the main provider of both food and medicine is none other than… los Estados Unidos de América.
Having mentioned those points, I will now turn to the criticism, and point out what Luis Miguel Cabrera does towards the middle of the debate is a typical leftist trick. Or a typical leftist tactic, if you prefer. He brings in some unknown tidbit, usually a very personal kind of tragedy, one which uses the epitome of innocence — "children's lives!" is his outburst — and one which none of us has heard about and none of us can — conveniently — verify or retort to. The leftist goes on to pinpoint exactly where and with whom the blame lies — "The U.S. prevents Cuba from acquiring custodial" he says, perhaps reading from a news source (Granma? Juventud Rebelde?) — and thus he shames his opponents into silence, with no alternatives being considered.
But let us assume that there is truth in his example of eight Cuban kids who needed organ transplants but had to wait for months for the medicine.
Notice that everybody assumes that none of the eight ever got the medicine (from whatever source in whichever country) and indeed that all eight have since died, even though neither of those things are ever stated outright. And although Luis Miguel Cabrera uses what must be called weasel language, saying that "I know some of these children who didn't make it" (suggesting that none of them made it) — although "not making it" might not mean what it is assumed to mean — I will go out on a limb and suggest that, for precisely the very reason that the France 24 journalist never states outright that any of them are dead, it is likely that most, if not all, of them are in fact alive today.
Again, assuming everything he says is true, however, the first question to ask is, How long would the embargo have had to be over for the calamity not to happen? Two months? Two years? Twenty years?
Besides, I thought that health care was one of the communist government's biggest sources of pride. (Indeed, wasn't that the subject of one of Michael Moore's "documentaries"? Related: Cubans wait months, sometimes years, for something as basic as a wheelchair.)
Second, why didn't we hear about the tragedy until today? Is it perhaps because of the communist media's censorship?
Imagine the French government, or a Danish hospital, or a Canadian NGO (not to mention a similar institution somewhere in the… USA) learning about the heart-wrenching tragedy of eight dying kids (in any foreign country) in dire need of a "chemical solution" for an organ transplant. You would imagine that any, or all, of them would immediately open their doors to welcome the kids to their country, as much to save innocent lives as for the good publicity and to mark points against Uncle Sam.
Having said that, it is inconceivable that Florida's Governor Ron DeSantis or Senator Marco Rubio (not to mention the President of the United States, whether it is Joe Biden or Donald Trump, or either of their secretaries of state) hearing about this calamity and, insofar as the situation is correctly described, not immediately demanding that the State Department be overridden (is that who is allegedly responsible? Don't people know that most bureaucrats in the federal government seem to lean left? — see Elián González) and the medicine be dispatched forthwith.
This suggests that when Luis Miguel Cabrera charges that "there are a lot of restrictions," said restrictions regarding medical purchases are not coming from the political world, but from the medical sector.
I'm guessing here — I have no other choice — but maybe the restrictions are quite reasonable, for instance insisting that any operation involving this type of medicine must be administered by a doctor who has at least, say, 18 months' experience in a particular field of study. (Meaning that the US might export the medicine to a — specialized — hospital in Paris or Copenhagen or Tokyo or Bogota, but not to a hospital in Kampala or Havana — in the latter case, one reason being because the island's communists will not let its medical students travel abroad for study; for that matter, it just might be that the restrictions might prevent them from sending the chemical solution to just any hospital in Kansas, in Colorado, or in California…)
This in turn would mean that the situation can — easily — be solved, by another solution: not to export the medicine but to "import", i.e., to welcome the patients to the USA. If it is true that "the rest of the world was afraid of having sanctions from the U.S." (hardly believable, certainly not regarding humanitarian aid such as food and medicine), why is there not another option: the "Cuban-Americans in the US gathering money" to fly the Cuban eight (and their doctors and at least some members of their families?) to, say, Miami for the medical treatment they needed?
There, indeed, is the final question: whether they had foreign invitations or not, why did the kids along with their families not travel abroad for care (the care that would presumably have been free)? Is it because of communist governments' habit of denying travel outside of the mother country? For fear that they, or some of them, might learn things about the communist system abroad and/or, worse, defect?
No comments:
Post a Comment