「台灣古巴後援會籌備中」，第175期通訊，2009年4月10日。
一，卡斯楚病後首見美國官方，精力充沛思路清晰
二，會晤美國三眾議員 卡斯楚：很棒
三，美古關係解凍有譜 卡斯楚兄弟晤美國會議員
四，英媒體稱卡斯特路兄弟願助奧巴馬改變美國
五，歐巴馬將放寬古巴旅遊限制 禁運規定維持不變
六，古巴經濟學家論危機 (見附檔)
_____________________________________________________________________
一，卡斯楚病後首見美國官方，精力充沛思路清晰
時間：2009/04/08
撰稿‧編輯：吳寧康
新聞引據：採訪,美聯社
為了展現古巴樂意和美國討論改善雙邊關係，古巴前領導人卡斯楚7日和3位到訪的美國黑人國會議員連線（Congressional black caucus）議員會面，這是卡斯楚自從2006年生病以來，首度和美國官方人士見面。
加州民主黨眾議員芭芭拉．李(Barbara Lee)表示，在將近2小時的會談中發現到，卡斯楚非常健康、精力充沛，而且思路清晰。議員們還參觀了卡斯楚的家，並和他的妻子見面。
在這次會面之前，古巴總統勞爾．卡斯楚已經在6日先和到訪的7位議員會面，這是自從勞爾在近14個月前擔任總統以來，第一次和美國官方會面。
目前正是外界臆測美國將放鬆對古巴的47年貿易制裁之際。芭芭拉．李表示，他們認為這是開啟和古巴對話與協商的時機，而古巴也的確願意協商，也想和美國有正常關係。
二，會晤美國三眾議員 卡斯楚：很棒
時間：2009/04/09
撰稿‧編輯：季平
引據：中央社,法新社
根據8日發表的一篇評論文章，古巴前任總統卡斯楚（Fidel Castro）以「很棒」來形容他日前與美國眾議員會面的情況。卡斯楚並且呼籲華府採取行動，改善與哈瓦那(Havana）的關係。
卡斯楚於7日晚間與到訪的美國黑人國會議員連線（Congressional Black
Caucus）的3位眾議員，進行了將近2個小時的會晤。
高齡82歲的卡斯楚在古巴國營的叛逆青年日報（Juventud Rebelde）上發表評論文章表示，古巴並非侵略者，也沒有威脅美國，古巴並未獲得採取主動的機會，現在球在美國總統歐巴馬那一邊。
美國訪問團團長、民主黨籍眾議員芭芭拉．李（Barbara Lee）表示，她希望促請歐巴馬總統能在這個月稍後到千里達及托巴哥共和國（Trinidad and Tobago）出席美洲高峰會之前，重新考慮美國對古巴的立場。
芭芭拉．李回到華盛頓後接受微軟國家廣播公司（MSNBC）訪問時表示，她和團員們正設法聯繫歐巴馬總統，希望和歐巴馬討論這次哈瓦那之行對古巴的觀感以及美國對古巴的政策。
三，美古關係解凍有譜 卡斯楚兄弟晤美國會議員
中央社
2009-04-08
11:09 AM
（中央社哈瓦那7日法新電）數位美國國會議員今天和古巴前領導人斐代爾．卡斯楚（Fidel Castro）及其胞弟、繼任者勞爾．卡斯楚（Raul Castro）會面，顯示經過50年的互相敵視後，美國與古巴關係好轉跡象。這是斐代爾於2006年生病以來，第一次會見美國公職人員。
卡斯楚兄弟表示，古巴已經準備好和美國進行對話。
美國眾議員巴巴拉．李（Barbara Lee）說：「我們在他（斐代爾）的住宅會面，他看來精力十足。」她和同儕希望在美國總統歐巴馬帶領下，美國與古巴關係能夠改善。
她昨天和勞爾．卡斯楚會面後說：「這是我們在此的原因。」
民主黨籍美國黑人國會連線七位成員訪問古巴五天，適值報導傳出歐巴馬計畫部份放寬對古巴長達47年的貿易禁運。同時，美國參議院一項提議，要求歐巴馬任命一位特使，以檢討美國與古巴雙邊關係。
美國國會議員代表團3日抵達古巴後，已和多位古巴重要官員會面，其中包括國會議長阿拉康（RicardoAlarcon）與外交部長羅德里格斯（Bruno Rodriguez）。（譯者：楊一峰）980408
四，英媒體稱卡斯特路兄弟願助奧巴馬改變美國
國際在線
據英國《獨立報》4月9日 報道，美國白宮曾暗示，新總統奧巴馬(相關)將採取新的措施以結束與古巴近50年的敵對關系。投桃報李，古巴領導人也向奧巴馬伸出了“友誼之手”，表示雙方可以坐下來談論任何問題，卡斯特路兄弟甚至願意幫助奧巴馬改變美國。
對奧巴馬總統很好奇
4月末，美洲國家峰會將在特立尼達和多巴哥舉行。美國總統奧巴馬可能將在峰會召開之前，宣布對古巴“松綁”的新措施，以緩解兩國近半個世紀的敵對局勢。美國的新措施包括：放松美國公民到古巴旅游的限制，古巴裔美國公民向古巴匯款也不再受限。
本周，美國眾議院代表團的六名議員與古巴現任總統魯爾‧卡斯特路以及他的哥哥、前領導人菲德爾‧卡斯特路舉行了會談，這是菲德爾‧卡斯特路放權後、魯爾‧卡斯特路接掌古巴政權以來，兩人第一次與美國政治家面對面會談。回國後，議員們稱，他們在古巴受到了出乎意料的熱情接待，古巴領導人對美國總統奧巴馬非常好奇。
為卡斯特路兄弟辯護
美國議員稱，菲德爾‧卡斯特路的身體非常健康，他依然精力充沛，而且思維清晰，這有力駁斥了此前外界盛傳其將不久于人世的傳言。眾議院民主黨女議員勞拉‧李察遜說：“他(菲德爾‧卡斯特路)非常希望奧巴馬總統能夠取得成功，他希望在有生之年看到美國發生改變。當我們交談的時候，菲德爾‧卡斯特路看著我的眼睛並且問道，“古巴怎樣做才能幫助奧巴馬總統？”
菲德爾‧卡斯特路在一篇文章中寫道：“除了選擇主動與美國進行會談外，古巴已經沒有別的選擇。古巴領導人並不是侵略者，我們從沒有想過威脅美國的安全。”此外，在談到美國與古巴的未來關系時，古巴現任總統魯爾‧卡斯特路向美國代表團明確表示，古巴可以與美國就任何問題展開談判。
美國伊里諾斯州民主黨眾議員鮑比‧拉什也評論稱，他們所見到的魯爾‧卡斯特路與媒體上描述的“恰恰相反”。實際上，他是一個富有幽默感的人。此外，他還有豐富的歷史知識。
五，歐巴馬將放寬古巴旅遊限制 禁運規定維持不變
By 美聯社
編譯:廖文韻
美國政府高層週六表示，歐巴馬政府計畫開放古巴裔美國人回古巴探親、寄錢回共產體制下的古巴家鄉。
由於計畫尚未正式宣布，因此透露消息的官員不願公開姓名，不過根據他們的說法，美洲元首高峰會議預定4月17日 至19日期間在千里達及托巴哥共和國舉行，歐巴馬總統計畫在那之前，宣布這項政策的改變。
.
雖然在歐巴馬上個月簽署的法案中，已經暫時放寬了某些限制；不過，再放寬的禁令，不但實現歐巴馬在總統大選競選期間所做的承諾，並象徵美國更寬大處理與古巴之間的關係。
一名官員表示：「這麼做的目的主要是為了試試水溫，看看我們能否讓古巴朝不同的方向發展。讓人民去旅行、增加交流、讓金錢流入古巴，或許是讓古巴政體更開放的一種方法。」
該官員表示，實施長達數十年的禁運限制，目前還沒有放寬的計畫；開放探親與匯款，只是總統要實現競選期間的承諾。
擔任總統候選人時，歐巴馬承諾不再限制前往古巴的探親旅遊以及匯款。他去年五月在邁阿密的演說中說：「是該讓古巴裔美國人回家，看看他們的父母親和兄弟姊妹了；是該讓他們把錢寄回家的時候了，好讓他們的家人不再如此依賴卡斯楚政權。」
國會中也出現愈來愈多聲音，主張廢除對古巴實施的種種限制。
現在，在古巴有親戚的美國人，每年可以返家探親一次，想待多久就待多久，一天最多可以花179美元。這些改變估計將影響到150萬名左右的美國人，並將持續實施到9月30日本預算年度結束為止。
六，古巴經濟學家論危機
We are facing something more than a mere financial
crisis’
An Interview with Cuban economist Oswaldo Martínez
Luisa Maria Gonzalez García
Translated by Richard Fidler
Socialist Voice
March 23, 2009
An Interview with Cuban economist Oswaldo Martínez
Luisa Maria Gonzalez García
Translated by Richard Fidler
Socialist Voice
March 23, 2009
"one of the problems of socialism is
that it has adhered to a development model similar to that of capitalism
....."
 |
|
|
|
Cuban economist Oswaldo Martinez, with
Fidel Castro
|
|
|
2009 started off badly. The international
economic crisis is the top priority of governments, companies, international
organizations and individuals preoccupied with having a roof to sleep under and
food on the table.
The situation has surprised almost
everybody, albeit Cuba
Oswaldo Martínez, director of the Research
Centre for World Economy and chair of the Cuban National Assembly’s Economic
Affairs Commission, had also alluded to the subject on several occasions.
Looking back, the Economics PhD says: “They criticized us heavily, they called
us catastrophists, but finally the crisis is here.”
Mass lay-offs all around the world, rising
unemployment and poverty, shutdowns of companies and closures of banks are some
of the most obvious effects of the crisis. What stage of the crisis are we in?
The crisis is just beginning, and no one
can predict with certainty its duration or intensity. We are facing something
more than a mere financial crisis: it is a global economic crisis that affects
not only international finances but also the real economy. Due to the high
degree of development achieved by speculation and financial capital in recent
years, due to the extent of the breakdown in the financial sector and due to
the high degree of globalization of the world economy, we can confidently
conclude that the present crisis will be the worst since the Great Depression
that occurred in the 30s.
What has been happening since August 2008
is the explosion of the speculative financial bubble, caused particularly by
neoliberal policies. At this point the crisis is beginning to affect the real
economy, that is, the economy that produces real goods and services,
development of technology, and values that can be used to satisfy needs. How
much more will it affect the real economy? It is hard to say. There are many
opinions on this subject. Some suggest that the crisis may last between two and
five years. If we use historical references, we see that the crisis of the 30s
started in October 1929, developed at full speed
until 1933, and the economies had not fully recovered their previous levels of
activity when the Second World War started in 1939.
What finally solved that crisis, and I say “solve” in inverted commas because this is how
capitalism solves a crisis, was precisely the Second World War; it was the
destruction of productive forces as a result of the war that allowed post-1945
capitalism to initiate a new growth stage based on the reconstruction of
everything that had been destroyed by the war. Every crisis, whether linked to
a war or not, is above all a process of destruction of the productive forces.
Turning to the current situation, I would
not presume to make a precise forecast on the duration of the crisis, but I
will say that it is far from having hit bottom.
Which are the sectors that have been worst
affected?
The explosion of the financial bubble has
caused the collapse of stock markets and the bankruptcy of large corporate
speculators (the so called investment banks, which in fact are not productive
investors but speculative investors). Large banks have become bankrupt and
credit at a global level has become scarce and expensive. The prices of raw
materials and oil have plunged. Sectors of the real economy, such as the motor
industry in the USA
To some specialists, this is one more cyclical crisis of the capitalist system, one of those
described by Marx in the 19th century. But it has also been said that it is not
just “one more” but, given the huge dimensions it has reached, it is the
expression of the internal destruction of late capitalism. What is your
opinion?
I think that the current crisis is, without doubt, another cyclical crisis of capitalism.
It is one more in the sense that the system that has been in place since 1825, the date of the first crisis identified by
Marx, has suffered hundreds of similar crises. A crisis is not an abnormality
of capitalism, rather, it is a regular feature and is even necessary to the
system. Capitalism follows a particular logic, since it needs to destroy
productive forces in order to pave the way for another stage of economic
growth. However, the current crisis is undoubtedly the mark of a deep
deterioration within the capitalist system.
I believe the crisis can reach very serious
dimensions, but I do not think that, on its own, it represents the end of the
capitalist system or its definitive destruction. One of the things that Marx
argued with great lucidity was that capitalism does not
collapse through an economic crisis. Capitalism has to be brought down, through
political actions.
So you agree with what Marx said, and
Vladimir Lenin and Rosa Luxemburg later demonstrated, that despite the self
destructive nature of capitalism, there has to be a revolution to bring it
down?
Of course I do. To think that capitalism
will collapse on its own, due to a spontaneous force like an economic crisis,
is to believe in utopia. The crisis may create conditions
that promote large anti-capitalist political movements. A capable
leadership of the masses that is adept at the art of politics can take
advantage of the favourable conditions created by the greater poverty,
unemployment, large-scale bankruptcy and desperation of the masses generated by
the crisis.
Throughout history, major economic crises
have been linked to revolutionary movements. For example, during the First
World War there was a profound capitalist crisis, and the success of the first
socialist revolution in Russia 1930’ s
however, was linked to the rise of fascism because in Germany and Italy
What I want to stress is that nothing is inevitably written in history. It all depends on
the skill and expertise of the contending political forces. In the
present situation, I think that it is possible to think about change: we are in
a situation that in my view is quite likely to result in a radicalization of
anti-capitalist movements.
It is yet another cyclical crisis, but it
is different; what makes it unique?
I think the differences lie especially in the
context. The present crisis is particularly complicated
because the global economy is much more complicated than it was in 1929. In the
first place, the level of economic globalization is vastly greater. The degree
of interconnectedness of national economies back in 1929 was still incipient,
corresponding to the technologies available at the time, especially in transportation and communications. In 1929 there
was no internet, no email, no jet planes; they depended on telegraph
communications, telephones were still quite underdeveloped, and planes were
just starting to take to the skies.
Today the situation is very different.
Globalization ensures that whatever happens in a powerful economy has an impact, within minutes, on the rest of the world.
Markets are greatly interconnected, especially global financial markets, and
that means that the world economy is like a spider web in which we are all
trapped. A movement in any part of the spider web is felt everywhere else.
Therefore, the capacity for this crisis to spread is infinitely greater than in
1929. That is the first difference.
Secondly, the level of
financialization of the global
economy is also vastly greater. Speculative capital and its operations play a
much greater role than in 1929. Back then there were stock markets, but their
functioning was much more simple. Today, financial speculation has achieved
immense sophistication, and this sophistication is at the same time one of its
weak points. That is, the speculative operations are so sophisticated, risky,
unreal and fraudulent that they have been at the basis of the global financial
breakdown.
Up until now no steps have been taken that
are sufficiently radical to curb the crisis. However, little by little, we are
seeing how states, above all the United States
In essence that is what they are trying to
do: to apply neo-Keynesian methods in a very diffused
manner. We can see this in what Barack Obama has announced in connection
with a major public works program including the
reconstruction of the highways system (roads, bridges, etc). That is a
typical Keynesian method of generating employment and income and stimulating
demand. But at the same time, measures
like this are being combined with others that are contradictory, such as rescuing bankrupt speculators and allocating huge
amounts of money to reconstitute the speculative structure which has failed
and collapsed.
This is in contradiction to
classic Keynesianism, and a
clear expression that the neoliberals continue to hold some key positions of power;
in fact, they have not been removed. We are witnessing a
battle between a neo-liberalism that is unwilling to die and a neo-Keynesianism
that is supposedly being established.
I very much doubt that
neo-Keynesianism, even if it is strictly applied, can be the solution to this
crisis, because the current crisis has new components. The crisis combines elements of over-
and under-production simultaneously; it is a crisis that coincides with
an attack on the environment so massive that it is not only economic, it is
also environmental, jeopardizing the survival of human beings and the
conditions for human life on this planet.
Do you mean that, in the form it has taken,
Keynesianism will only be a temporary solution that will paper over the
problems without getting at the roots?
Of course. It is inconceivable that
Keynesianism and neo-Keynesianism can be an infallible recipe to resolve the
economic problems of capitalism. Capitalism has suffered major crises with both
neoliberal and Keynesian policies. Between 1973 and
1975 there was a severe capitalist crisis that occurred under Keynesian
policies, and that was a factor that brought about the substitution of
neoliberal policy for Keynesian policy.
We
should put no credence in the false dichotomy according to which neoliberalism
provokes the crisis and Keynesianism resolves it. Simply put, the system is
contradictory and has a tendency to develop periodic economic crises. Whether they are neoliberal or Keynesian,
economic policies can facilitate, postpone or stimulate, but they are not able
to eliminate capitalist crises.
Then there is one solution left: socialism …
Without a doubt. I am more convinced of
this than ever before and I believe that we are very clearly faced today with
the quandary posed by Rosa Luxemburg: “Socialism or
barbarism”. I do not believe that humanity will regress to barbarism, if
only because our survival instinct is the strongest of all.
I believe rational conditions will prevail,
and rational conditions imply a sense of social justice. I think we will
overcome capitalism, and we will come to implement a creative socialism,
socialism as a continuous search, which is not to deny that the system has
certain general basic principles in common to all socialisms. However, based on
these principles, there are immense possibilities for experimentation,
controversy and creativity.
And that would be the socialism of the 21st
century?
I think so.
President Rafael Correa, in a lecture he
gave in the main assembly hall at the University of Havana in January this
year, explained that one of the problems of socialism is that it has adhered to
a development model similar to that of capitalism; that is, a different and
fairer way to achieve the same thing - GDP, industrialization and accumulation.
What do you think?
Correa raised a good point. The socialism
practiced by the countries of the Socialist Camp replicated the development
model of capitalism, in the sense that socialism was conceived as a
quantitative result of growth in productive forces. It thus established a
purely quantitative competition with capitalism, and development consisted in
achieving this without taking into account that the capitalist model of
development is the structuring of a consumer society that is inconceivable for
humanity as a whole.
The planet would not survive. It is
impossible to replicate the model of one car for each family, the model of the
idyllic North American society, Hollywood etc. - absolutely impossible, and this cannot be the reality
for the 250 million inhabitants of the United States
Although I heard Correa say many correct
things, there was one that seems incorrect to me. In his TV interview, when he
was talking about this socialism of the 21st century, with which I am in full
agreement, he referred to things that would be obsolete and would have to be
done away with. Amongst them, he mentioned the class
struggle, but I think that what he was explaining in his lecture in the
main assembly hall about the political struggles that confront him in Ecuador
Who opposes this agenda? It is undoubtedly
the oligarchy, the bourgeoisie. Who can he rely on to support him against those
enemies? The workers, the peasants, the indigenous peoples. What I have in mind
is not a narrow classic definition of “class”, but the
undeniable existence of social classes, broadly speaking, and the struggle of
those classes is undeniable and evident. If we renounce the class
struggle, what would we be left with? Class collaboration? I do not think Ecuador can proceed to 21st century socialism
with the cooperation of people like Gustavo Novoa [Former president of Ecuador (2000-2003), now living in exile in the Dominican Republic
Many expectations have developed worldwide
in relation to the presidency of Barack Obama. What role can his government
play with regards to solving the crisis?
I do not have high hopes of change. I
believe that Obama’s government may represent a certain change in U.S.
In 1932, when the crisis was full-blown,
Franklin D. Roosevelt was elected president. His ideas were nothing
extraordinary, there was nothing in his election platform that would suggest
what would happen next: his policy of active state intervention in the economy,
of basing himself on the trade unions or regulating the private U.S.
All those measures were taken more as the
result of what the crisis forced him to do, than as a result of a pre-existing
political philosophy. Something similar could happen with Obama; we must give
him the benefit of the doubt to see where the crisis might take him.
In the past few weeks there has been a lot
on talk about the role of Latin American integration in
confronting the crisis. Although this process is only in its initial
stages, there have been changes at the structural level that point towards integration.
How can integration help us face the crisis as a region and as a country?
I think that the integration of Latin
America and the Caribbean will be a key strategic factor in the future of the
region, of course, and I do not mean integration as an appendage of the United States Cuba Americas
This situation coincides with the big
crisis that is forcing Latin America to
rethink her position in the global economy. This also coincides with the
profound crisis in the neoliberal policy that dominated the region during the
last 30 years. It is a great moment, and I think that there is a real
possibility that true Latin American and Caribbean
integration is beginning to take firm steps.
Some commentators are arguing that in the
wake of the current crisis the world economy will be structured in large
regional blocks: one in Asia, another that will continue to exist in North
America, and a new one taking shape in Latin America .
This is a very interesting possibility.
Translated for Socialist Voice by Richard
Fidler. A somewhat different translation by Damaris Garzón was published
in CubaDebate .
發表文章
0 意見:
張貼留言