「台灣古巴後援會籌備中」，第85期通訊，2008年6月9日。
1. 古巴新政 高爾夫產業蓄勢待發
9日，台灣立報
- 記者∕作者：陳荻雅
【編譯陳荻雅整理報導】
古巴強人卡斯楚一輩子只打過一次高爾夫球，那是1961年一場用來藐視美國的宣傳噱頭。
現在，卡斯楚已於今年初將政權轉交給弟弟勞爾，共產黨國家古巴準備放下意識形態，展臂迎接最資本主義的運動──高爾夫球。
高爾夫再創觀光潮
來自加拿大與歐洲的投資者計畫在加勒比海海灘度假村興建有柵欄、警衛，圍城似的高爾夫球城，內含奢華的飯店、渡假別墅或公寓，及18洞與36洞的球場。
包括由英國頂尖建築師曼徹斯特公司承包的幾個案子，早已在規劃階段，幕後金主希望古巴的新總統勞爾能放行，給他們一個振興高爾夫球場的機會。
前加拿大駐古巴大使馬克‧安推斯妥認為，基於意識形態反對高爾夫球的守舊派已漸漸式微，他現擔任一家欲至古巴大展鴻圖的外商公司顧問。
安推斯妥進一步指出：「現在，高爾夫被視為繼陽光、沙灘之後，又一重要且深奧的觀光資產，應能再創觀光熱。」
勞爾上任後，身為古巴半世紀以來首位新領導人物，他開始摩拳擦掌，準備廢除諸多不合時宜的規定。如此一來，即便古巴仍是一黨專政的社會主義國家，過去只對外國觀光客開放的飯店，終於也可以對古巴人開放了。
勞爾顯然不像卡斯楚這麼厭惡中產階級的運動。安推斯妥表示，目前有10件高爾夫渡假村的案子在等待審核，進度有快有慢。
昔日球場成軍營
美國中央情報局（CIA）於1961年發起「豬灣事件」，大批古巴流亡人士在CIA的協助與訓練下進攻古巴，哈瓦那與華盛頓關係緊張。當時，卡斯楚與「切」格瓦拉身穿軍裝與軍靴，以打高爾夫球宣示他們的目的。
游擊隊精神指標──「切」格瓦拉，幼年時曾在阿根廷的科爾多瓦當過桿弟，是真的會打高爾夫。
兩位革命家的球敘在柯林納德維拉瑞爾（Colinas de Villareal）球場舉行，該址已成為軍營。
這個全哈瓦那最高級的鄉村俱樂部已被收歸國有，如今是古巴最好的藝術與音樂學校。
目前古巴首都只有9洞的球場，那裡曾經是商賈與外交官雲集的前英屬流浪者運動俱樂部（Rovers Athletic Club）場址。
那破爛的球道有輝煌的過去，當一代球王阿根廷足球明星馬拉多納為戒古柯鹼而住在古巴時，曾天天在該處打高爾夫。
古巴革命後唯一一座新球場是1988年開的，是時古巴被蘇聯垮台震醒，剛剛開放外資與觀光。該球場是華倫狄洛（Varadero）最大的渡假村，裡頭18洞的球場是延用美國化學鉅子艾倫尼‧杜邦留下的海景別墅中的設備。
古巴現在重新點燃對高爾夫的興趣，主因是觀光收入停滯。自2006與2007年，遊客人數逐年下降，每年的觀光收益久未突破20億美元。
有沙灘陽光還不夠
如果古巴想要和其他哥倫比海國家如墨西哥、牙買加、多明尼克共和國媲美，勢必得蓋新的高爾夫球場。精通古巴地產的美國邁阿密律師安東尼奧‧然莫拉以多明尼克共和國為例指出，多明尼克雖然國土比古巴小，但國內22座高爾夫球場，年年都吸引了比古巴更多的觀光客。
然莫拉說：「要吸引觀光客，就要滿足他們的需求。觀光客想要高爾夫球場的程度不亞於他們愛海灘、游泳池及娛樂的程度。」
眼前最大的問題是，沒有可用的地產，就沒有廠商能蓋球場，這是外國公司在提出興建球場的企畫時所遇到的障礙，外國公司希望至少有50到75年的租期，否則不願投資。
然而，古巴現行法律不允許外國人在古巴置產，未來也不打算這麼做。
地產問題延宕興建案
對此，然莫拉說，目前為止，古巴政府還沒通過任何一起興建案，因為長期租賃與否的問題引起了爭辯。
在古巴發展豪華渡假勝地的主要廠商──休閒加拿大公司，總公司在溫哥華，以礦業與地產起家。負責人華立‧貝柯夫等古巴官方批准建案已經等了近10年，他計畫在離哈瓦那40哩遠的吉巴蔻亞（Jibacoa）建造有臨海飯店、分時共享別墅（time-share villa）、健康水療按摩設備，以及18洞球場的高爾夫球城。
休閒加拿大甚至和英國的職業高爾夫球協會簽署執照協議，並在官方網頁上表示，希望能提升古巴的高爾夫品質，並促使古巴的高爾夫球比賽達到世界級水準。
一起和地產問題無關的建案將比較可能先開跑，這起建案由法國營建公司承攬，但幕後金主是隸屬古巴軍方的旅遊公司。這個球場將建在華倫狄洛，名為伊卡柯斯船塢與高爾夫渡假村。
2. 古巴将为公民提供免费变性手术
（另請參考後援會18日發出電郵）
据美联社7日报道，古巴官员周五称，古巴将允许进行变性手术，并为符合规定的申请人提供免费手术服务。这是劳尔·卡斯特罗自2月份从他哥哥手中接过权利后，古巴体现出的一些列变化中的一项。古巴卫生部官员称，古巴卫生部长已经签署了这项决定，并将于周六公布在卫生部网站上。作为古巴国民福利体系的一部分，变性手术将免收任何费用。
古巴性教育中心称，已经有28名古巴人申请做变性手术，古巴还聘请了比利时医生来培训本国医生的手术技巧，但目前还不知道第一例手术将在何时进行。1988年，古巴曾成功的完成了第一例变性手术，但随后由于公众的反对，古巴停止了这种手术。（环球网 高友斌）
3. Fidel's comments on Obama's vision for Cuba
卡斯楚寫於5月25日，英文翻譯6月2日刊登於Gramma。
他對歐巴馬5月23日在「古巴美國基金會」的演說後，表示「若靜默不表示意見，我就不誠實」，歐巴馬表示要維持禁運。卡斯楚說他「必須提問，但不期待回答，但留下記錄，有其必要」，英文如後：
Fidel Castro reacts to Presidential hopeful's speech to Miami's Cuban community
02 June 2008
The Empire Hypocritical Politics
It would be dishonest of me to remain silent after hearing the speech Obama delivered on the afternoon of May 23 at the Cuban American National Foundation (CANF)created by Ronald Reagan. I listened to his speech, as I did McCain's and Bush's. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor. I have therefore no reservations about criticizing him and about expressing my points of view on his words frankly.
What were Obama's statements?
"Throughout my entire life, there has been injustice and repression in Cuba. Never, in my lifetime, have the people of Cuba known freedom. Never, in the lives of two generations of Cubans, have the people of Cuba known democracy. (...) This is the terrible and tragic status quo that we have known for half a century - of elections that are anything but free or fair (...) I won't stand for this injustice, you won't stand for this injustice, and together we will stand up for freedom in Cuba," he told annexationists, adding: "It's time to let Cuban American money make their families less dependent upon the Castro regime. (...) I will maintain the embargo."
The content of these declarations by this strong candidate to the U.S. presidency spares me the work of having to explain the reason for this reflection.
Jos?Hernandez, one of the Cuban American National Foundation directives who Obama praises in his speech, was none other than the owner of the 50-calibre automatic rifle, equipped with telescopic and infrared sights, which was confiscated, by chance, along with other deadly weapons while being transported by sea to Venezuela, where the Foundation had planned to assassinate the writer of these lines at an international meeting held in Margarita, in the Venezuelan state of Nueva Esparta.
Pepe Hern嫕dez' group wanted to renegotiate a former pact with Clinton, betrayed by Mas Canosa's clan, who secured Bush's electoral victory in 2000 through fraud, because the latter had promised to assassinate Castro, something they all happily embraced. These are the kinds of political tricks inherent to the United States' decadent and contradictory system.
Presidential candidate Obama's speech may be formulated as follows: hunger for the nation, remittances as charitable hand-outs and visits to Cuba as propaganda for consumerism and the unsustainable way of life behind it.
How does he plan to address the extremely serious problem of the food crisis? The world's grains must be distributed among human beings, pets and fish, which become smaller every year and more scarce in the seas that have been over-exploited by the large trawlers which no international organization could get in the way of. Producing meat from gas and oil is no easy feat. Even Obama overestimates technology's potential in the fight against climate change, though he is more conscious of the risks and the limited margin of time than Bush. He could seek the advice of Gore, who is also a democrat and is no longer a candidate, as he is aware of the accelerated pace at which global warming is advancing. His close political rival Bill Clinton, who is not running for the presidency, an expert on extra-territorial laws like the Helms-Burton and Torricelli Acts, can advice him on an issue like the blockade, which he promised to lift and never did.
What did he say in his speech in Miami, this man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency? "For two hundred years," he said, "the United States has made it clear that we won't stand for foreign intervention in our hemisphere. But every day, all across the Americas, there is a different kind of struggle --not against foreign armies, but against the deadly threat of hunger and thirst, disease and despair. That is not a future that we have to accept --not for the child in Port au Prince or the family in the highlands of Peru. We can do better. We must do better. (...) We cannot ignore suffering to our south, nor stand for the globalization of the empty stomach." A magnificent description of imperialist globalization: the globalization of empty stomachs! We ought to thank him for it. But, 200 years ago, Bolivar fought for Latin American unity and, more than 100 years ago, Mart?gave his life in the struggle against the annexation of Cuba by the United States. What is the difference between what Monroe proclaimed and what Obama proclaims and resuscitates in his speech two centuries later?
"I will reinstate a Special Envoy for the Americas in my White House who will work with my full support. But we'll also expand the Foreign Service, and open more consulates in the neglected regions of the Americas. We'll expand the Peace Corps, and ask more young Americans to go abroad to deepen the trust and the ties among our people," he said near the end, adding: "Together, we can choose the future over the past." A beautiful phrase, for it attests to the idea, or at least the fear, that history makes figures what they are and not all the way around.
Today, the United States have nothing of the spirit behind the Philadelphia declaration of principles formulated by the 13 colonies that rebelled against English colonialism. Today, they are a gigantic empire undreamed of by the country's founders at the time. Nothing, however, was to change for the natives and the slaves. The former were exterminated as the nation expanded; the latter continued to be auctioned at the marketplace men, women and children for nearly a century, despite the fact that "all men are born free and equal", as the Declaration of Independence affirms. The world's objective conditions favored the development of that system.
In his speech, Obama portrays the Cuban revolution as anti-democratic and lacking in respect for freedom and human rights. It is the exact same argument which, almost without exception, U.S. administrations have used again and again to justify their crimes against our country. The blockade, in and of itself, is an act of genocide. I don't want to see U.S. children inculcated with those shameful values.
An armed revolution in our country might not have been needed without the military interventions, Platt Amendment and economic colonialism visited upon Cuba.
The revolution was the result of imperial domination. We cannot be accused of having imposed it upon the country. The true changes could have and ought to have been brought about in the United States. Its own workers, more than a century ago, voiced the demand for an eight-hour work shift, which stemmed from the development of productive forces.
The first thing the leaders of the Cuban revolution learned from Mart?was to believe in and act on behalf of an organization founded for the purposes of bringing about a revolution. We were always bound by previous forms of power and, following the institutionalization of this organization, we were elected by more than 90 percent of voters, as has become customary in Cuba, a process which does not in the least resemble the ridiculous levels of electoral participation which, many a time, as in the case of the United States, stay short of 50 percent of the voters. No small and blockaded country like ours would have been able to hold its ground for so long on the basis of ambition, vanity, deceit or the abuse of power, the kind of power its neighbor has. To state otherwise is an insult to the intelligence of our heroic people.
I am not questioning Obama's great intelligence, his debate skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday. It is indeed a touching human spectacle. Nevertheless, I am obliged to raise a number of delicate questions. I do not expect answers; I wish only to raise them for the record.
Is it right for the president of the United States to order the assassination of any person in the world, whatever the pretext may be?
Is it ethical for the president of the United States to order the torture of other human beings?
Should state terrorism be used by a country as powerful as the United States as an instrument to bring about peace on the planet?
Is an Adjustment Act, applied as punishment on only one country, Cuba, in order to destabilize it, good and honorable, even when it costs innocent children and mothers their lives? If it is good, why is this right not automatically granted to Haitians, Dominicans, and other peoples of the Caribbean, and why isn't the same Act applied to Mexicans and people from Central and South America, who die like flies against the Mexican border wall or in the waters of the Atlantic and the Pacific?
Can the United States do without immigrants, who grow vegetables, fruits, almonds and other delicacies for U.S. citizens? Who would sweep their streets, work as servants in their homes or do the worst and lowest-paid jobs?
Are crackdowns on undocumented residents fair, even as they affect children born in the United States?
Are the brain-drain and the continuous theft of the best scientific and intellectual minds in poor countries moral and justifiable?
You state, as I pointed out at the beginning of this reflection, that your country had long ago warned European powers that it would not tolerate any intervention in the hemisphere, reiterating that this right be respected while demanding the right to intervene anywhere in the world with the aid of hundreds of military bases and naval, aerial and spatial forces distributed across the planet. I ask: is that the way in which the United States expresses its respect for freedom, democracy and human rights?
Is it fair to stage pre-emptive attacks on sixty or more "dark corners of the world", as Bush calls them, whatever the pretext may be?
Is it honorable and sound to invest millions and millions of dollars in the military industrial complex, to produce weapons that can destroy life on earth several times over?
Before judging our country, you should know that Cuba, with its education, health, sports, culture and sciences programs, implemented not only in its own territory but also in other poor countries around the world, and the blood that has been shed in acts of solidarity towards other peoples, in spite of the economic and financial blockade and the aggression of your powerful country, is proof that much can be done with very little. Not even our closest ally, the Soviet Union, was able to achieve what we have.
The only form of cooperation the United States can offer other nations consists in the sending of military professionals to those countries. It cannot offer anything else, for it lacks a sufficient number of people willing to sacrifice themselves for others and offer substantial aid to a country in need (though Cuba has known and relied on the cooperation of excellent U.S. doctors). They are not to blame for this, for society does not inculcate such values in them on a massive scale.
We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements. We offered the United States our help when hurricane Katrina lashed the city of New Orleans. Our internationalist medical brigade bears the glorious name of Henry Reeve, a young man, born in the United States, who fought and died for Cuba's sovereignty in our first war of independence.
Our revolution can mobilize tens of thousands of doctors and health technicians. It can mobilize an equally vast number of teachers and citizens, who are willing to travel to any corner of the world to fulfill any noble purpose, not to usurp people's rights or take possession of raw materials.
The good will and determination of people constitute limitless resources that cannot be kept and would not fit in a bank's vault. They cannot spring from the hypocritical politics of an empire.
Fidel Castro Ruz
May 25, 2008
10:35 p.m.
發表文章
0 意見:
張貼留言