Why Obama do not lift the embargo against Castro's Cuba: The issue of Conservative and Latino votes

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Although many of Latin American presidents are asking Obama to end sanctions against Cuba, a powerful domestic reason cannot be overlooked neither by Congress nor by the President of the United States: the American voters.

Conservatives

In this sense, the strongest opposition against lifting the economic blockade is in the conservative groups. Most politicians, soldiers, businessmen, religious and intellectuals in the United States are, by ideas and interests, natural enemies of a totalitarian political project such as the Castro regime in Cuba, so they see in the embargo a way to press for democratic reforms.

These sectors continue seeing in Cuba the same factors that led to the blockage in the past, therefore it is illogical for them to lift sanctions until the Castro regime will also make concessions.

Latinos

However, there is another important group of voters who oppose any softening of the U.S embargo against Cuba until the Castro regime demonstrates its willingness to improve the human rights situation. They are the Latinos that arrived to the United States fleeing the political and economic turmoil of Latin America.

This group of Latinos is mostly anticastrist because many of them lived personally the true Cuban revolution, or are the offspring of those who lived it, or if they come from another Latin American country they have Cuban friends that tell them about the realities of Cuba.

Moreover, as most of U.S. Latinos know the two Americas, they have compared the two political models and have realized that nothing is more third worldist than the Castro brothers' ideology and its imitators.

As a result, the majority of U.S. Latinos -unlike many Latin Americans who live in their countries of origin- also want measures of pressure against Cuba, because they wish to see their brothers and sisters free, and some want the opportunity to produce in their country what they have learned from the developed world.

So, if the Conservatives and U.S. Hispanics are summed, it is a good amount of votes that should be considered before acting. Hence Obama cannot lift the embargo without obtaining reciprocity from Havana.

Related articles:

- Latino leaders and the 2009 Summit of the Americas

- Why Castro and Chavez mellowed down their tone against Obama

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

Why Castro and Chavez mellowed down their tone against Obama

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

When Barack Obama became president of the United States, Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez planned to have a conflictive relation also with the new U.S. President. To this end, Castro and Chavez applied their distinctive style of criticisms and insults against anyone who does not share their anti-democratic beliefs.

However, the comandantes have adopted now the contradictory attitude of praising some policies of the new U.S. government and congratulating Obama on almost everything he says about international issues.

So two questions arise: why this change of tone? Is it the case that the United States and Obama meet now the conditions to seek an understanding with the leftist leaders?

And the answers can be found in two main reasons:

Oil

First is the problem of crude prices. The Venezuelan petroleum empire controlled by Castro and Chavez is no longer producing the same profits as before, due to falling oil prices. What put the comandantes in the embarrassing position of needing the Yankees' money to finance their socialism -via public debt and oil investments in the case of Venezuela, and through remittances and tourism in the case of Cuba- swallowing their revolutionary words.

Popularity

However, not only money is affecting the plans of the Latin American left's most extreme representatives, as the today's world presents a new variable not anticipated by Castro and Chavez: A U.S. President, Barack Obama, is currently the most popular leader of the planet.

Reality that has an adverse effect on the anti-imperialist story, considering that this leftist ideology sounds less absurd if used against globally unpopular opponents such as Nixon or Bush.

Thus, the acclaimed Obama appears as an inconvenient enemy for the governments of Cuba and Venezuela, as his political influence makes his criticisms of Chavez and Castro more heavier than those made by George W. Bush. In the same way that it is more difficult for the left to criticize the international celebrity in which it has become the new American president.

Castro and Chavez also know that Obama has the ability to override the negative leadership of Latin American communists, because the new U.S. president has achieved his popularity with smart and democratic ideas. Quite the opposite of the obsolete Castro-Chavista project that proposes a violent world, unequal and undemocratic.

That's why Castro and Chavez are now more cooperative. They need fast money and should avoid being eclipsed by Obama, but they will not last long pretending.

Related articles:

- Latino leaders and the 2009 Summit of the Americas

- Progressive Leaders Summit Chile 2009: Conclusions

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism

Panama presidential election, May 3, 2009: Polls

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Panamanians will elect a new president on May 3, 2009. For this election the main competitors are Balbina Herrera, of the rulling Revolutionary Democratic Party, and Ricardo Martinelli, of the Democratic Change party.

A big stain of the Revolutionary Democratic Party is its past as the political arm of Omar Torrijos' military dictatorship, who was father of the current president. For what most of its members are linked to the oligarchy that have managed the political power for personal gain in Panama for years. As an example we can cite that dictator Torrijos and his later imitator Manuel Noriega were part of the same group of officers who sought to maintain political power in the hands of military dictatorships.

For his part Ricardo Martinelli is a successful businessman, an "outsider" from a young political party that represents the change in Panama.

According to the latest opinion survey, Martinelli has 46% of the electorate, so he is the favorite to win. Balbina Herrera has 35% of popular support, Gullermo Endara 3% and 16% of Panamanians are not sure whom to vote. This survey was conducted from March 28 to 31 by Ipsos, sample size of 1082 Panamanians and margin of error of 3.2%.

Click on the image to enlarge it

Related articles:

- Ecuadorian presidential elections 2009: Polls

- Cristina Fernandez's leadership deteriorates

- Latino leaders and the 2009 Summit of the Americas

Fifth Summit of the Americas 2009, Trinidad and Tobago: The Latin American leaders' double standard on the Cuban issue

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In the Fifth Summit of the Americas held in Port of Spain, Trinidad and Tobago, one of the most prominent issues that was discussed was the Cuba subject. In this regard, the majority of Latin American presidents -but specially Hugo Chavez- made his position very clear: 1) It is necessary to lift U.S. trade sanctions against Cuba, and 2) Cuba should be reinstated in the Organization of American States.

However, this Latin American leaders' position seems hypocritical, because who is really committed to the welfare of the Cuban people would demand not only what we have just mentioned, but also why, in Cuba, the government does not allow free elections; only the communist party is permitted to exist; the current president Raul Castro inherited power from his brother Fidel like a family-owned business; hundreds of journalists, civil activists and dissidents remain imprisoned on political charges; independent trade unions are not allowed; and human rights are violated continuously.

But as if only the actions of others matter, Chavez and Latin American presidents who attended the Summit of the Americas to demand the lifting of sanctions on Castro-communism and the return of Cuba to the OAS, do not include in their proposal the call for Cuba to make democratic reforms, reflecting their double standards and that their commitment is not with Cubans but with the Havana regime.

It is time that Latinos take actions in favor of the Cuban people and help them move toward a true democracy, where there is freedom of choice and expression. How long our leaders will continue to ignore the suffering of these people to please the Castros?

Related articles:

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- Progressive Leaders Summit Chile 2009: Conclusions

- The invasion of Georgia and the leftists' double standards

Venezuela after February 2009: Misleading concessions - extremism – rising tensions

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The victory against Chavez's constitutional reform in 2007 and the opposition's performance in the 2008 regional elections, were events that calmed tensions in Venezuela. For the first time since Chavez became president, he acknowledged his defeat -in 2007- and lost at the hands of the opposition -in 2008- governorships that were previously held by Chavistas. Which proved in a way that Chavez could tolerate some kind of opposition.

But as is often the case with Chavez, the moderate tone was only an excuse to gain time and retaliate with more radicalization. After approving the indefinite re-election in February 2009, Chavez has been dedicated to accelerate his revolution: He started criminal proceedings against opposition leaders, created new laws that go against the Constitution -to increase his powers and legalize the communists reforms- he ordered his followers to destabilize states not controlled by the chavismo to show that only Chavistas control the people, took control of ports and roads to keep regional opponents with less resources, and increased his nationalization program and harassment against the private sector.

So, if by accepting the constitutional reform defeat in 2007, and the loss of governorships in 2008, Chavez was able to control passions in Venezuela, his extremist actions of 2009 are doing everything opposite, reviving the Venezuelans' fears about dictatorship and communism.

Related articles:

- Chavez's political agenda after February 15, 2009

- Venezuela referendum Feb. 2009: Analysis of the results

- Defects of Chavist plan announced on March 21, 2009

How acts of oppression lead to political self-destruction

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

Every time we hear of governments that commit human rights violations trying to assert its power. Most often these crimes against humanity are expressed persecuting dissidents, imprisoning political opponents, censoring the press, disabling opposition leaders, assassinating rival politicians, etc..

However, this state terrorism is condemned by a political truth: When a government commits acts of cruelty against those it governs, it discredits before national and international public opinion, which at the end can destroy even a strong dictatorship.

To see this in practice we can quote several examples: The huge number of tortured and political prisoners collected by the Venezuelan dictator Marcos Perez Jimenez, and the drastic censorship on the media under his regime, were facts without which the popular discontent, that led to his removal from power in 1958, would never have erupted.

The same can be seen elsewhere: In Pakistan, dictator Musharraf was forced to resign after the killing of the dissident leader Benazir Bhutto. The dictator Rafael Trujillo overflowed discontent and was overthrown after the brutal murder of the Mirabal sisters. Torture at the Guantanamo prison and violation of international law in the war of Iraq ended with the popularity of George W. Bush in the world.

In Venezuela Carlos Andres Perez began his political debacle after the "Caracazo", Montesinos' crimes against opponents were largely responsible for the collapse of Fujimori, Pinochet's brutal repression was indeed the element that decided the election that took him out of power, and the blatant violation of human rights in Cuba will topple castro-communism in the coming decade to never return.

To this we must add that Hugo Chavez lost a referendum -2007- and the main Venezuelan governorships -2008- after closing a TV station -RCTV- and tightening persecution against opponents. Besides, the Venezuelan government harmed its image before democratic nations by disabling dissident politicians, harassing the press and using the state media to defame opponents.

In conclusion, it is very difficult for any government to commit acts of injustice against dissenters without discrediting itself and eventually relinquishing power, because every political prisoner, every opponent killed, every journalist harassed, every slander that comes from the official media, and each politician unfairly disabled by law is automatically transformed into a factor that undermines the legitimacy of the political system.

Related articles:

- On the Obama's decision to close Guantanamo

- Questions after 50 years of Castrist revolution in Cuba

- First criticism of Liberation Theology

The moral of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009. Online Survey

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

During March 2009, we made the following question to the visitors of our Spanish website Morochos.org:

What is the moral of the global financial crisis of 2008-2009?

We gave two options:

1) Capitalism has failed

2) Banks need better regulation

The results were:

- 59% voted for the second option -better regulations-

- And 41% chose the first one.

Observations:

Most of those who participated in the survey believe that this financial crisis has taught us that private banks need better regulations. Which is exactly consistent with the conclusions of the G-20's latest meeting and with the IMF's recommendations.

We must recall that one of the causes of the current financial crisis was the excessive debt of individuals and banks. In addition, due to the bankruptcy of some financial institutions, the public showed great concern for the safety of their savings.

Consequently, over-indebtedness and savers' protection should be among the matters to be better regulated.

Click on the image to enlarge it

Related articles:

- The 2008 U.S. financial crisis: Origin & ideological implications

- Progressive Leaders Summit Chile 2009: Conclusions

- The Hispanic vision of the US financial crisis

Foreign exchange policy Venezuela 2009: Can Chavez stop the bolivar's devaluation?

Authors:
Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri and José Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

In March 2009, President Chavez announced an economic package and said proudly that he will not devalue the bolivar, presenting this decision as a heroic revolutionary act.

However, after listening to the Chavez's economic plan, many people in Venezuela are asking the same questions regarding the value of the bolivar:

Why did not the government devalue in March?

To answer this we must understand that Chavez is facing a huge dilemma: With devaluation, he acknowledges the failure of his foreign exchange policy, in addition to suffering the consequences that come with currency depreciation -like inflation- But without devaluation, he must cope with the losses of keeping a subsidy on the exchange rate.

This time President Chavez decided to go for the first option to hide his failure to maintain exchange rate stability. Certainly confident that he still has many dollars in international reserves and because he is convinced that oil will return to $100 a barrel soon.

How long the government will resist?

Unfortunately for Chavez, the option to cover up his failure on foreign exchange policy will lead to serious economic consequences that will be seen soon. Venezuelan government finances are incurring losses in subsidizing dollars allocated to travelers, importers and all others who have access to the preferential exchange rate.

By not adjusting the currency to its real value -such as the one reflected in the parallel market- the government has to exchange dollars for bolivars at a disadvantageous price, damaging even more the battered public finances of Venezuela. And the bigger the spread between real dollar - subsidized dollar, the greater the loss for the government. Thus, the Chavez's fixed exchange rate is increasingly becoming unsustainable.

The exact time at which devaluation will occur is impossible to predict. However, it is very likely to happen in the short term. There is no option for the Venezuelan government. The longer Chavez waits to recognize his failure to maintain exchange rate stability, it will be worse for the economy, because keeping a subsidized dollar is eroding the national budget.

Related articles:

- Defects of Chavist plan announced on March 21, 2009

- Chavez's nationalizations hurt the Venezuelan budget

- Progressive Leaders Summit Chile 2009: Conclusions

Progressive Leaders Summit Chile 2009: Financial crisis must not lead to protectionism or populism

Authors:
José Alberto López Rafaschieri and Luis Alberto López Rafaschieri
www.morochos.net

The main leaders of the international democratic left met last weekend in Villa del Mar, Chile, to discuss solutions to the global financial crisis. The meeting was so important, that was attended by the prime ministers of Britain and Spain, as well as the presidents of Brazil, Chile and United States vice president, among others.

For us, something very positive of this summit is that it showed that center-left is addressing the contemporary humanity's problems with professionalism and democratic orientation, because they talked about issues like public expenditure, renewable energies, poverty, democracy, trade and better market regulations to avoid further crisis. Quite relevant matters that were treated with the required seriousness.

Two important issues were highlighted by Bachelet and Zapatero, who warned to avoid the temptation of protectionism and populism. In this regard, we believe that the remark on protectionism was an alert to the industrialized countries that are taking measures to fight imports.

While in regard to the warning about populism, this was indeed an indirect criticism of the anti-democratic model of Venezuela and its allies in the region, hoping thereby to dissuade other countries from following the path of Hugo Chavez. In fact, organizers don't sent invitations to Venezuela, Cuba or Bolivia, which shows the democratic left's disagreement with these countries' political models.

Related articles:

- "Buy American Plan" weakens the U.S. image before the WTO

- Obama-Lula meeting, March 2009: Brazilian energy

- Obama's victory will give a blow to the Latin leftism