Print

Print


This from Ned Sublette should add some nuance to the discussion, especially as it concerns US "bipartisan policy."

"Amid the euphoria (and as heads spin in right-wing circles), it's sad to recall that Bill Clinton, whose legacy looks worse and worse with the passage of time, could have done this, and much more, twenty years ago, and saved us all a lot of grief. Instead, by allowing himself to be stampeded into signing the horrendously imperialist Helms-Burton law, he tied his own and future presidents' hands (and laid the groundwork for the Alan Gross mess). Thanks to him, regime change in Cuba is US policy in law, which specifically mentions Fidel and Raúl Castro by name, and the embargo has to be repealed by Congress. He also prosecuted the Cuban Five. Nor did he remove the bogus designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism, which designation Secretary of State Kerry will now "review."

Having the first Latin American Pope as the facilitator was brilliant. So that, for example, Marco Rubio (b. 1971, who, let us remember, like many of his anti-Castro-industry colleagues, has never been to Cuba and whose family left Cuba in 1956, though he used to claim they fled Communism until Manuel Roig-Franza dug up the facts) is in the position of having to lecture the Pope on human rights as he does his "it's a totalitarian country" shtick. 

A salute to former President Jimmy Carter, who is practically an unmentionable these days, but who tried to do this in the 1970s -- he scrapped the travel ban entirely -- and who, significantly, visited Cuba in 2011 and spoke, live and uncensored, on Cuban TV. He did manage to establish "interests sections" in lieu of embassies and establish the precedent of family visits, but much of his initiative was undercut by Reagan-Bush (to say nothing of Mariel), just as Obama's work could be undone under the third President Bush (what, you don't want a third President Bush, or a second President Clinton?) Meanwhile, President Obama could be the first sitting President since Coolidge to visit Cuba.

It looks like the travel ban will still be in effect -- US citizens still won't be able to go for tourism -- but there will be a different interpretation of it. General license for travel is greatly expanded -- meaning, you won't have to hire a lawyer to get a piece of paper from the Treasury Department to permit your travel on a case-by-case basis; travel, while not unrestricted, will become much easier. In particular, educational trips will boom. (One of the allowable categories for general license now is public performance.)

We're going to have embassies, at last. Cuba and the US will attend hemispheric conferences together. Banking and financial transaction regulations have been liberalized -- very important -- and the remittance caps have been raised. Big question: with the travel ban still in place, though greatly loosened, will we get direct, regularly scheduled, less expensive, non-charter flights by major airlines, like we have to other countries? I'm not finding an answer.

The embargo is still in place, though the net result of all of this may be, as Tom Hayden suggests below, to hollow it out. I don't see any chance that the new far-right Congress will agree to lift it. Matt Peppe writes at Counterpunch: "Obama’s correct decision to abandon the Cold War policy towards Cuba needs to be accompanied by a recognition that the policy itself has been immoral, criminal and wrong. Period. As long as the economic blockade is not overturned by Congress, it continues to be so." While I'm at it, just for the record, we should also not only close the prisons at Guantánamo, but close the US Navy base there and return control of that port to Cuba.

Meanwhile, Cuba's Venezuelan lifeline sinks along with the price of oil. Venezuela, which presently has the highest rate of inflation in the world, may default in the next twelve months.

In the words of Manolín, El Médico de la Salsa: eso no es na', prepárate pa' lo que viene. "


The quote at the end means "This aint nothin. Get set for what's coming."


-----Original Message-----
From: David Latane <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Dec 18, 2014 4:35 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nationalism Will Always Exist

American subs haven't been based in Holy Loch since 1992.

What's all this Orange Lodge stuff? Do you mean that when I was in Glasgow last summer during the world cup those marchers weren't Dutch fans?

Two of the worst bipartisan policies in the US, both of long standing, were the stance towards Cuba and the blind eye to the IRA.

David Latane
http://www.standmagazine.org (Stand Magazine, Leeds)


From: Sean Carey <[log in to unmask]>
To: [log in to unmask]
Sent: Wednesday, December 17, 2014 7:51 PM
Subject: Re: Nationalism Will Always Exist

If the Scots had indeed voted Yes the issues of the bases would have soon have created a real display of American power. I doubt if the State Dept. would have let the Americans budge. I doubt if Mr Salmond would have moved Mr Obama to say a farewell to Scotland? In fact in ways it would have been Obama's delight to gain revenge for the letting go of the Pan Am suspect who has since passed away.

The American view that these isles are made up of Orange and Green battling it out are part of history. At home our stomach for bomb and bullet is thankfully more or less gone. More than enough died Mark and Americans did indeed help fund our guerrilla groups both Orange and Green. 

Anglo Irish relations have improved but work remains to be done.

Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-----Original Message-----
From: Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
To: BRITISH-IRISH-POETS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Wed, Dec 17, 2014 10:15 PM
Subject: Re: Nationalism Will Always Exist




This is a vast oversimplification of history, Sean. Like, that Mexico was hardly our first imperialist adventure.  And the special relationship has varied in its impact--it was British money that funded the settlement of the west and built the railroads, and that dominated the US economy until 1890, and it was the decision of the London banks not to back the confederacy that won the war for the north. But I'll restrict my comments to the immediate situation in Scotland preceding the referendum. The area around the Clyde estuary west of Glasgow voted no, and tipped the scale. There were two factors in this that are at odds with your interpretation, neither of them very pretty. One is that the area is a stronghold of the Orangemen. The other is that the major industry in the area is the trident base. I was in Helensburgh a couple of days before the referendum. The talk was all about the economic impact if there were a yes vote and the base was closed. And the area's Orange lodges made their opinion eminently clear with marches and political organizing. Economic insecurity motivated the vote in that area, and sectarian prejudice. I don't think US interests had much to do with it.

-----Original Message-----
From: Sean Carey
Sent: Dec 17, 2014 4:39 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Nationalism Will Always Exist

But when nationalist hate and violence create death and injuries and end up destroying jobs then we must simply say No. Within Socialist thought since the sixties or earlier Internationalism was sidelined. Many genuine radicals thought entering nationalist parties would change them via entryism. Sadly many died or suffered serious injuries as a result. The internal nationalist party structures do not tolerate debate while their paramilitary wings are rooted in a tiny cabal calling the shots. 


In my own time running literary groups I kept an open door policy which upheld the right to free speech for all. To exclude any political view I could never allow and if people found listening to poets or bands or singers who supported violence they had the option to leave. Many poets indeed are nationalists with indeed many famous writers fascists. That term in a 2014 context sounds corny but a lot of people in the world detest democracy. They would prefer a strong man or woman in power with no elections. Modern fascists do not wear brown shirts or indeed W.B. Yeats' blue hue. There is no Mosley holding mass meetings or street battles between left and right. Ireland has no Eoin O' Duffy but far smoother operators in designer kit.


The benefits of "The Special Relationship" with America only works in America's interest. To keep Europe divided has always been an American ploy and the dollars that helped kill and maim in Birmingham indeed crossed the Atlantic. America started its imperial adventures in Mexico where its role is still dubious. Rather than pull clear of Europe Britain should pull closer to the E.U. which contains nations who view America with deep mistrust. Under Obama America has tried to retreat but the real action East of Suez keeps getting in the way. I am sure the State Dept. look with favour on UKIP and their European role models in Golden Dawn and the French National Front. These groups help America's interest. 


Poets can help by opposing the drift to fascist rule on these islands by pointing out that we live in times of huge danger. Poems in themselves can inspire young and old to join those who oppose 2014 right wing thinking. In the past poems helped to expose false promises and lynch mob tactics.



Sent from AOL Mobile Mail


-----Original Message-----
From: Tim Allen <[log in to unmask]>
To: BRITISH-IRISH-POETS <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Tue, Dec 16, 2014 12:01 PM
Subject: Re: The wily Alex


I agree with you Mark. I know the line that Sean takes on it, and David too to an extent, is the view of a portion of what we might call the intelligencia (there Dave - your one of the inteligencia) but it is not a generally held view by people in general and certainly not the media. Nationalist parties are always a strange mix and I don't think they can be categorised all together but need to be looked at in their own contexts. I don't fully trust Salmond but I don't fully trust anybody else either. In contradiction to Sean I think there are genuine socialist strands within the SNP and cynic though I am I really don't think this is false front - Nicola Sturgeon seems genuine to me. There are, I admit, non-socialist and even anti strands within it but the bulk of Scotland is not behind them. I personally don't want Scotland to go independent because I would much rather be a citizen of a country that included it, for a whole raft of reasons.

The UKIP thing is something else. I loathe them, but at the same time they do reflect the views of many. They have given a stronger voice to a nasty strand of thinking that has always existed in this fair land and made it OK to express thinly veiled racist and thuggy rightist opinions under a dangerously populist banner. Most of all I don't like the way the other parties are pandering to this, particularly Labour. I know that this is a matter of political strategy etc but I still don't like it and don't think it will do any good in the long run. I believe that when faced with vile opinions, especially ones based on scapegoating, you should counter them directly and stop worrying about the tabloids and opinion poles. The media, especially TV, has much to blame for the rise of UKIP - they early on saw Farage as good viewing material and, being the media, that's all they were concerned with. They never miss an opportunity to have him on the screen.

As for your own fair land - well, it's really pleasing when your democracy actually works for once, as with the recent Senate committee report on the CIA - such openness would never happen here. The torture revelations are no surprise of course - we have known for years about this stuff. And as it has always done, everything points to the Brits being complicit - Blair, Straw, DAVID Miliband at the top and countless others down the line all look as guilty as hell but I very much doubt if anything ever comes of it. I doubt too that Rifkind would be so eager to uncover secrets if it had been a Conservative government in power at the time. But there you go. It's never publicly said but we all know that David Miliband would probably be the current leader of the Labour Party if he was not so closely associated with rendition.

Bloody politics. Let's get back to something full of warmth and peaceful thoughts like poetry. 

Cheers and Happy Christmas to all my readers.

Tim
             
On 15 Dec 2014, at 21:37, Mark Weiss wrote:

I spent the month before the referendum and the two weeks after in Glasgow. This is decidedly not what I heard or saw.

-----Original Message-----  
From: Sean Carey  
Sent: Dec 15, 2014 10:22 AM  
To:   [log in to unmask]  
Subject: The wily Alex  

Salmond assumes a lot and in his timing on the Yes or No vote miscalulated. The SNP is rooted in conservative thinking with their core support among well paid workers who would be happy to lose Labour or socialist thinking. It is their view that poverty is just a scam that they pay for with their taxes. They like the SNP because it rids them of Labour and English liberalism in a split from London. UKIP and the Celtic Nationalists are not and never were socialists. Their roots are in Italian 19th century nationalism. I see no trace of John MacLean in the SNP brand but a lot of Garibaldi.



<[log in to unmask]>