The New York Times, a Branch of Granma

The New York Times, a Branch of Granma / Cubanet, Miriam Celaya
Posted on March 11, 2016

Cubanet, Miriam Celaya, Havana, 9 March 2016 – The New York Times (NYT)
has just dedicated a new editorial to Cuba. Or, to be more accurate, the
article, signed by Colombian Ernesto Londoño, makes a whole accolade
about what he — and perhaps the executives of that influential newspaper
— depict as the beginning of a process of freedom of expression on the
island.

And the unusual miracle of opening up which was announced triumphantly
has been taking place just "since the United States began to normalize
relations with Havana in late 2014." So, magically, by the grace of
Barack Obama's new policy, "Cubans have begun to debate subjects that
were once taboo, and to criticize their government more boldly." (Oh,
thank you, Barack. Cubans, always so incompetent, will be forever
grateful to you!).

Unfortunately, such sublime journalistic purpose is truncated because of
the obtuse ignorance editorialists and publishers have about Cuban
history and reality. In fact, from his first paragraph, Londoño's forced
rhyme to "illustrate" Cuban advances in matters of freedom of expression
could not have been any more unfortunate: "In the past, when a Cuban
athlete disappeared during a sporting event abroad, there was no
official acknowledgement or any mention of it in the State media."

Then he refers to the recent extent of athletes defecting, starring with
brothers Yulieski and Lourdes Gourriel — two young baseball stars who
escaped the Cuban delegation during its stay in the Dominican Republic —
as "an episode that illustrates how citizens in the most repressive
country in the hemisphere are increasingly pushing the limits of freedom
of expression".

This New York Times apprentice is either misinformed or totally
clueless, because all Cubans on the island, especially those of us born
soon after that sadly memorable 1st of January 1959, are aware of the
numerous official statements of the National Institute of Sports,
Physical Education and Recreation (INDER), a repudiation of what the
Cuban government qualifies as defection of athletes who sell themselves
to the powers of capital. Who in Cuba does not remember the deep voice
and the indignation of the newspaper commentator and sports broadcaster,
Héctor Rodríguez, now dead, reading passionately those intense pamphlets
against the traitors?

Such official statements have certainly not been released each time a
desertion has occurred, but definitely every time they have turned out
to be extremely outrageous and blatant, as with the recent case of the
Gourriel brothers.

Another noteworthy aspect is the NYT's overvaluing of the role of the
U.S. government "to reduce the culture of fear and the obedience that
the State has long-used to control its citizens," which has resulted in,
"Today, a wider section of Cuban society is speaking with less fear." It
would seem that the efforts of opponents, dissidents, independent
journalists and other civil society organizations, as well as the
natural wear and tear of a whole society subjected to decades of
deprivation and deceit by a ruling elite, has achieved absolutely nothing.

Of course, nobody with a modicum of common sense would deny the
influence any political change of a U.S. administration has on Cuba,
especially when all of the Cuban dictatorship's foreign (and domestic)
policies have based their central axis on its dispute with the U.S.
Personally, I am among those opponents who support a policy of dialogue
and reconciliation, since the conflict of over half a century did not
produce any results, and it is still too early for the Obama policy
towards Cuba to be classified as a "failure." In political matters,
every process needs a time period to reach fruition, and we should not
expect major changes in just 14 months of dialogue between parties to a
half a century of conflict.

However, to grant the new position of the White House the ability to
open democratic spaces of expression within Cuba in that short period of
time is wrong, irrational, and even disrespectful. Not only because it
distorts reality and deceives the American public, but because it
deliberately fails to acknowledge the work of many independent
journalists who have pushed the wall of silence that has surrounded the
island for decades, reporting on the Cuban reality, and who have
suffered persecution, imprisonment and constant harassment for their
actions, by the repressive forces of the regime.

Nevertheless, the real latent danger in the biased NYT editorial is its
presenting as champions of freedom of expression those who are useful
tools of the regime in its present unequivocal process of mimicry: the
pro-government bloggers, a group that emerged in the shadow of official
policy as a government strategy to counter the virulent explosion of
independent bloggers that began in 2007 and that two years later had
grouped in the Voces Cubanas blogger platform, the access to which from
Cuba was immediately blocked by the government.

Blogger Harold Cárdenas, who is Mr. Londoño's chosen example of a critic
of the Castro autocracy, is actually what could be defined as a
"Taliban-light," equivalent to a believer convinced of the superiority
of the Cuban system, disguised as a critic. If the Castro dictatorship
has any talent, it is the ability to adapt to each new circumstance and
survive any political upheaval, a quality that allows it to manipulate
the discourse and elect its "judges" at each new turn.

In the present circumstances of non-confrontation with the Empire,
Hassan Pérez, an angry and hysterical beefeater, now disappeared from
the scene, would be out of the question. Instead, someone like Harold
Cárdenas is ideal: he is reasonably disapproving, moves within
government institutions (so he's controllable) and knows exactly where
the line that cannot be crossed is. Additionally, sensible Harold
remains safely distant from all the independent press, and he uses the
same epithets to refer to it as does the government: "mercenaries at the
service of imperialism," or "CIA agents."

Another dangerous illusion is the alleged existence of a "progressive
wing" within the spheres of power in Cuba, to which — according to what
Londoño stated in the NYT — Harold Cárdenas is closely related. On this
point, the utter lack of journalistic seriousness of the NYT is
scandalous. The myth of a "progressive" sector as a kind of conspirators
— which is actually a host of opportunistic individuals — close to the
tower of power, waiting for the chance to influence changes in Cuba, has
been spreading in the media outside the island for a long time, but, so
far, this is mere speculation that has no basis whatsoever.

In addition, it is unacceptable to limit the hopes of a better future
for Cubans from the inferred recognition of those who are the currently
close supporters of the regime. No change in Cuba will be genuine unless
it includes as actors, in all its representation and variety, the
independent civil society and all Cubans on the island and the diaspora.
Nor will there be true freedom of the press as long as the dictatorship
is allowed to select its "critics" while it punishes independent
thinking of any fashion.

As for the imaginary meetings at all the universities in the country to
discuss the political future of Cuba, this is the most fallacious thing
that could have occurred to Mr. Londoño, and it exposes a huge flaw in
the credibility of the NYT. Could anyone seriously believe that the
Cuban dictatorship would allow questioning of the regime within its own
institutions? Could it be perhaps that Londoño and the NYT managers have
shattered in one fell swoop the Castro principle that "universities are
for revolutionaries"?

But none of this is really a surprise. The prelude started in October,
2014, when an avalanche of NYT editorials was written by Ernesto
Londoño, noting that it was time to change U.S. policy towards Cuba, an
idea I share in principle, but for very different reasons and arguments
as those the NYT advocates. Two months later, the restoration of
relations would be announced.

By then, Londoño and his employers didn't remotely have a clue of the
Cuban reality; neither do they have any now. But what has become a
conspiracy against the rights of Cubans cannot be construed as naive or
as good intentions gone astray. Perhaps it is time that this Latin
American, whose will has been tamed so appropriately to the old northern
colonial mentality, that which considers the people of the subcontinent
incapable of self-achievement, should write about the serious conflicts
of his own country of origin — which, paradoxically, are being decided
in Cuba today — if he at least knows more about Colombian reality than
Cuban.

Meanwhile, it appears that the peddlers of Cuban politics have managed
to weave much stronger ties with the NYT than we imagined. No wonder NYT
editorials seem to have turned that newspaper into the New York branch
of Cuba's State and Communist Party newspaper, Granma.

Translated by Norma Whiting

Source: The New York Times, a Branch of Granma / Cubanet, Miriam Celaya
| Translating Cuba -
http://translatingcuba.com/the-new-york-times-a-branch-of-granma-cubanet-miriam-celaya/