Castro: Down with Mubarak, long live to Qaddafi

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

The double standard of Fidel Castro's opinion about foreign policy should lead him to consider changing the name of his column, placing "Contradictions of Fidel Castro" instead of "Reflections of Fidel Castro." In his last essay, the Antillean dictator leaves us with an effect similar to being sick, because after having weeks writing against the authoritarian regime of Mubarak in Egypt, and how the protests of that nation were glorious expressions of freedom, now the Communist leader says Qaddafi's case is different.

In his column "The Plan is to Occupy Libya", Castro returns to the old tale of the oil-hungry U.S,, widely used to justify dictatorships, to explain that behind the riots in Libya is the NATO imperialist hand to grab the oil of that country. Besides, the Cuban warlord described Qaddafi as a great guy that is victim of the international press.

With these arguments, Castro is trying to downplay the democratic wishes of the Libyan people, accusing demonstrators of being part of this alleged NATO international conspiracy, and encouraging other governments to give their support to the Qaddafi's socialism.

But the reality is that Qaddafi is more cruel than Mubarak himself, although both are members of the same dungeon of shame that history has reserved for all despots, including Fidel Castro. The Cuban dictator may write a thousand articles trying to wipe the image to his Libyan ally; however, they will never have more power than the voices of millions of Arabs who want freedom. In any case, the next Castro column would be more interesting to discuss the issue "When the Cuban people will rise up against their oppressors?".

---

Related articles:

• Embargo against Venezuela?
• The Palmer code
• Cuba, living without the US

Embargo against Venezuela?

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

In the Conservative Political Action Conference of USA, on Saturday, February 12, Republican Congressman Connie Mack proposed a full-scale economic embargo against the government of Hugo Chávez. This proposal would be agreeable to the majority of Venezuelans because such a measure could affect the Castro-Chavista regime, but things are not always what they seem.

Embargoes do not work, usually, against authoritarian governments. Retrospectively, the long U.S. trade sanctions against Cuba, Iran, North Korea or Syria, far from paving the way for democratic transition, have facilitated things for these repressive political systems to rule over economically weak states, where people depend more than before on government assistance. Resulting in fewer people dare to defy the despot.

Embargoes serve also as an excuse for autocratic leaders to evade responsibility for the inefficiency of their administration, by blaming the sanctions imposed by the outside for all the social ills, and to appeal to the idea of a conspiracy orchestrated by Washington as justification for jailing domestic opponents and shut down media outlets for allegedly cooperating with it.

Wait for the North Americans to solve almost always has been a bad deal for countries affected by oppressive governments. The desperation for immediate solutions has often led exiled immigrant communities in the U.S. to be sympathetic to any proposal to do something against their oppressors, and Venezuelans are not immune to that reality. However, a package of economic sanctions by the United States against Venezuela, to undermine Chavez, have no great expectations for what we have mentioned. Dictatorships end when the internal opposition is numerous and determined to change things, the recent case of Egypt, Venezuela in 1958 and Ukraine in 2004 are some examples.

---

Related articles:

• The Palmer code
• Cuba, living without the US?
• The Cuban Perestroika

The Palmer code

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

In 2009, Obama could select any of the hundreds of diplomats available in the U.S. to occupy the Vatican embassy, but he suggested Caroline Kennedy, whose liberal views on abortion and marriage were not welcomed by the Holy See. So he had to find someone else for the work, again Obama could choose among hundreds of candidates with profiles different from Kennedy's, but no, he elected Douglas Kmiec, an outspoken advocate of the same ideas that caused the rejection of the first option, and this one was also no accepted.

In the end, the U.S. government and the Vatican managed to find an ambassador to leave both sides happy, but not before Obama launched a clear reformist message against the ideas of the Catholic Church on marriage and abortion.

The dispute with the Vatican was settled, now we go to 2010, and among the many tasks that the US president must handle is the appointment of a new ambassador to the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. The situation is similar to that described above, hundreds of names, tens of unique personalities, but Obama chooses Larry Palmer, the person who had once denounced the alleged growing discontent within the Venezuelan armed forces and the links between Chavez and the Colombian guerrillas.

The Venezuelan president's refusal is not strange, surely Obama will have to propose another person to the office in Caracas. However, the diplomatic language in the Palmer case is analogous to that used by Obama with the Vatican, although for different reasons. The White House is sending a message of warning to Miraflores, maybe rejecting the ties that the Chavez government would still maintain with the Colombian rebels.

---

Related articles:

• Chavez's attitude to the Costa Rica-Nicaragua case
• US legislative elections, Chomsky and Stiglitz
• Chavez's intellectual Anglo-Saxonism