MIAMI.- Free expression is a basic principle of all human beings and no matter how distorted an opinion may be, it must be respected. However, the arguments used are debatable, especially when they promote a dangerous degree of confusion or discouragement in the exile. For that reason, I am going to take issue with an article published on social media titled: Is Unity Impossible in the cuban exile?
“Unity” cannot be confused with “unanimity.” Nor should the patriotic struggle of the Cuban exile be confused with the North American political struggle. They are different objectives and with different strategies.
We must not cloister the cause of Cuba to a specific political party, no matter how many coincidences we individually have with one of them. The exile is privileged to have important Cuban-American political figures in both parties who fight, defend and promote the freedom of Cuba with passion and dedication. The opinion expressed in the article in question, of tying Cuba’s cause to a political party, is a serious strategic error.
The fight for freedom in Cuba has always had the privilege of having the most important unity, which is the “unity of objectives.” For this indisputable reason, we can affirm that the overwhelming majority of exile organizations have always been united in the objectives of a free and democratic Cuba. This unity has been more comprehensive and majority than that which existed in the times of José Martí when the objectives of independence faced strong competition from autonomy and annexationism.
Along the same lines of reasons, it cannot be described as “disunity” or “inability” if there are differences in strategy regarding the ways to achieve the objective. In the 60’s the prevailing way of achieving the objective was by armed means and the exile had the privilege of having men who offered their lives or who paid for their commitment to Cuba with long years of prison.
Today, another fighting strategy prevails and the exile has embraced it with strength and passion through the Assembly of the Cuban Resistance (ARC) which, I don’t know for what reason, the article in question does not even mention it.
The ARC is the broadest coalition that has existed in the history of exile: 54 organizations inside and outside Cuba. The ARC brought together experts from various countries who, together with delegates from all the Assembly organizations, participated in the development of an important National Salvation Plan for Cuba. The plan includes the 4 stages that lead to the goal of a free and democratic Cuba: Liberation, transition, democratization and reconstruction. In this way, the ARC has offered the Cuban people a clear and specific path to the future, assuring them that there will be no improvisations and that the sovereignty that should be theirs will be returned.
It is incredible that someone describes the Cuban exile as “fragmented”, “divided” and “weak”, and that they think that “tyranny is united in a partisan bunker and with a trench of ideas.” There has not existed in the history of humanity a human conglomerate like the Cuban exile that, after 65 years of dictatorship, has an extensive number of organizations and people participating in the fight for the freedom of their Homeland.
It is common for the dictatorship to send agents and blackmail Cubans who want or need to travel to the island. It is the typical strategy that communist regimes have used in the world. Proposing that exile organizations have to “command” mayors, the police, banks, corporations, etc., is a misconception of the purpose of exile and its organizations.
The article in question says: “Whoever believes that he can be president of Cuba, aspiring from the enemy fragmentation and the media banner, should not even dream of it.” The phrase, so impersonal, it is not known who it refers to, but it is appropriate to remind you that a disqualifying tactic that the Castro dictatorship has traditionally used against various Cuban exile leaders (intending to present them as “ambitious”) has been precisely that, a alleged aspiration to the presidency of Cuba. They used it against Tony de Varona, against Jorge Más Canosa and against Carlos Alberto Montaner, just to mention those who have already died. It must be clear that no Cuban who fights, inside or outside the island, should be disqualified from being president or from the position he desires.
The statement that “the exile has less and less access to radio, TV and the press” is also not valid. That is not true. Anyone who watches the frequent press conferences held by the ARC will be able to see the extensive coverage they receive.
Another essential point to clarify is the statement that the exile “does not have representation” because no organization was invited to the Annual Conservative Conference (CPAC) on February 24. Here I must mention, for information purposes, that the ARC has been invited and has spoken before numerous congresses and parliaments around the world in the last 12 months. For example: The European Parliament, the Parliament of Sweden, the Congress of Peru, the Legislative Assembly of Costa Rica, the Senate of Chile, the Parliament of Canada, just to mention the most recent.
But, even more important in terms of representativeness, is that the Assembly of the Cuban Resistance has been accepted as a full member of UPLA (Union of Political Parties of Latin America), which is an organization of political parties and movements created 30 years ago to promote and defend democracy and freedom in Latin American countries. UPLA has 30 member parties from 19 countries. The Assembly was invited, spoke and participated in the last UPLA Congress held in Asunción, Paraguay, last November with the participation of the president of Paraguay and his entire government cabinet. The central theme of the Congress was the Cuban issue. The women’s section of UPLA, made up of women congressmen or political activists in their countries, have taken the majority of Cuban political prisoners as godmothers.
