What made you undertake such an ambitious project as "The Timetable History of Cuba?"
As far as I can remember, I've always had an interest in the history of my people, and this format allows me the opportunity to let the world know about men like José Martí and Antonio Maceo and many others who dedicated their lives to the idea of an independent Cuba.
My hope is to encourage an honest exploration of Cuban History, and to feed the idea that Cuba can and should have the right to choose her own future.
Once we begin to explore the history of the island, we will encounter a five-hundred-year struggle for identity and independence, and we will recognize the grave mistake that is traditional U.S. policy towards Cuba. I call it a mistake because it does not reflect the values that we claim as Americans and teach our children.
As an implant in the land of apple pie and Chevrolet, my heart can't help but remain Cuban. My sensibilities are Cuban.
In my heart, I want my people to continue. To thrive. To offer something of their unique point of view to the world (this would never happen under American tutelage) and not just become a sideshow for people on vacation. Cubans have much to offer the world, such as the ability to genuinely celebrate our differences instead of being frightened by them. Cuba is one of the few places where black and white people can live in peace and harmony. This is something the world sorely needs to learn!
One of the most uniquely beautiful aspects of Cuban history is the fact that during the 30-struggle for independence that began in 1868, the rhetoric of the Cuban Revolution was anti racist. Cuba's revolutionary armies were always integrated, and black soldiers were able to rise to the highest ranks. This unique aspect of Cuban reality has made her a target to be absorbed, controlled and dominated.
miércoles, 5 de mayo de 2010
What do you think of the Helms-Burton Act?
What do you think of the Helms-Burton Act?
In Alice Walker’s open letter to President Clinton, written just after he signed the Helms-Burton Law (which tightened the embargo against Cuba, in 1996), she writes, “The bill is wrong, the embargo is wrong, because it punishes people, some of them unborn, for being who they are.” I agree with her.
For starters, there’s a great deal of hypocrisy in that name. What this legislation does is make it difficult to establish peace, and it tries to force the rest of the world to become hostile against Cuba. This may be why the whole world is in opposition.
According to Wayne Smith, from the Center for International Policy, the CDA is “the brainchild of the ultra-conservative Republican organization, the Cuban-American National Foundation,” and is an example of “how not to advance our objectives” in Cuba. “Thanks to the Cuban Democracy Act,” he says, “ the United States was isolated, with only Israel and Romania voting with us.”
As enhanced by the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo against the Cuban population is considerably meaner than any other U.S. embargo, including those against China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, Iran, Iraq (during the Gulf War, the U.S. government exempted foods and medicines to the Iraq embargo for humanitarian reasons) and Nicaragua. Non-U.S. firms in countries such as Switzerland, France, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic have reportedly been threatened by U.S. embassy personnel with commercial reprisals unless they canceled planned sales to Cuba of goods ranging from milk to soap.
The meanness of this legislation, and the timing of its implementation, looks very bad for the U.S. from a world perspective, and makes people doubt the wisdom of U.S. leadership. It confirms the fears many people have that the lunatics are all in congress.
In Alice Walker’s open letter to President Clinton, written just after he signed the Helms-Burton Law (which tightened the embargo against Cuba, in 1996), she writes, “The bill is wrong, the embargo is wrong, because it punishes people, some of them unborn, for being who they are.” I agree with her.
For starters, there’s a great deal of hypocrisy in that name. What this legislation does is make it difficult to establish peace, and it tries to force the rest of the world to become hostile against Cuba. This may be why the whole world is in opposition.
According to Wayne Smith, from the Center for International Policy, the CDA is “the brainchild of the ultra-conservative Republican organization, the Cuban-American National Foundation,” and is an example of “how not to advance our objectives” in Cuba. “Thanks to the Cuban Democracy Act,” he says, “ the United States was isolated, with only Israel and Romania voting with us.”
As enhanced by the Helms-Burton Act, the embargo against the Cuban population is considerably meaner than any other U.S. embargo, including those against China, North Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Uganda, Iran, Iraq (during the Gulf War, the U.S. government exempted foods and medicines to the Iraq embargo for humanitarian reasons) and Nicaragua. Non-U.S. firms in countries such as Switzerland, France, Mexico, and the Dominican Republic have reportedly been threatened by U.S. embassy personnel with commercial reprisals unless they canceled planned sales to Cuba of goods ranging from milk to soap.
The meanness of this legislation, and the timing of its implementation, looks very bad for the U.S. from a world perspective, and makes people doubt the wisdom of U.S. leadership. It confirms the fears many people have that the lunatics are all in congress.
What do you think about the embargo against Cuba?
I oppose the economic embargo against Cuba, and welcome a sane and humane policy of peaceful engagement.
As you will learn throughout this web site, Cuba went from four centuries as an unwilling Spanish colony to six decades as an un-willing near-colony to the U.S. When it was finally established that Cubans would no longer accept the cruel and corrupt U.S.-supported governments of the past, and that Cubans felt the right to establish their own type of government and befriend whoever they wished, the Cold War emerged, as did hostilities such as terrorism, sabotage, assassination attempts and the economic embargo. Because of the overwhelming amount of legislation passed in more than forty years of the embargo's existence, it has become a full-blown blockade.
Embargoes are an immoral war-time policy that employs human suffering and disease as political weapons with a very simple logic; the lack of food and hope are supposed to rev-up the affected masses to the point where they implode into civil war and overthrow their government.
The common people, the ones who had the least to say about the type of government they're now stuck with, are the ones who live the effects of the embargo. They are the ones who bear the blunt of the hunger and disease, and the ones that will supposedly rise in arms against their government. Needless to say, these people, the ones the embargo aims to activate, are those who might be more inclined to be part of a democracy and oppose the communist regime… those who may be already making a statement by choosing not to work for the government.
Given our stated position on human rights, and what we already know about embargoes, why do we continue trying to starve Cubans into submission? Do we really want to bring this old idea and its brutal methods with us into this new millennium?
It should be noted that in spite of the embargo, Cubans have maintained a higher level of health care than any country in South America, and the literacy rate in Cuba is 98% (higher than in the state of Texas!).
The economic embargo against Cuba is the longest running embargo in modern history, and is as misunderstood by working Americans as is the aggressiveness of U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba. Would it be fair to punish these working Americans for the crimes of the U.S. government by depriving them of food, medicine and the hope of a future for their children? Are we not shocked enough by the horrendous acts of terrorism (9/11/01) to make us take a look at this? Cubans understand the difference between the American people and the American government, and they would never choose to punish one for the crimes of the other.
The situation was not helped by President Clinton's cowardly lack of leadership in this area, and President Bush's debt to Cuban-Americans for the pseudo-victory which gave him the presidency. Both presidents have, so far, followed the failed policy of Cold War and big-stick diplomacy over the wisdom of peace and engagement.
From a Cuban perspective, these recent governments are not much different from the ones that tried to buy Cuba from Spain, and the current congress is no different from the one that imposed the Platt Amendment on Cuba and appropriated Guantanamo Bay for military use over 100 years ago.
The world is united in its support for Cuban solidarity. For ten consecutive years the United Nations General Assembly has recommended an end to the embargo. On November 28, 2001, the United Nations again voted 167 to 3, against the embargo, with three nations abastaining. Voting with the U.S. was Israel and the Marshall Islands. (It should be noted that in spite of voting for the embargo, Israel continues to trade with Cuba.)
There's an old saying in Latin America: "The United States never remembers and Latin America never forgets!" This explains the depth to which Cuba (and Latin America) distrust U.S. governments.
We need to stop being so angry with Castro and make peace, just as we've made peace with other communist regimes. We may find that it is a part of ourselves we end up finding peace with.
As you will learn throughout this web site, Cuba went from four centuries as an unwilling Spanish colony to six decades as an un-willing near-colony to the U.S. When it was finally established that Cubans would no longer accept the cruel and corrupt U.S.-supported governments of the past, and that Cubans felt the right to establish their own type of government and befriend whoever they wished, the Cold War emerged, as did hostilities such as terrorism, sabotage, assassination attempts and the economic embargo. Because of the overwhelming amount of legislation passed in more than forty years of the embargo's existence, it has become a full-blown blockade.
Embargoes are an immoral war-time policy that employs human suffering and disease as political weapons with a very simple logic; the lack of food and hope are supposed to rev-up the affected masses to the point where they implode into civil war and overthrow their government.
The common people, the ones who had the least to say about the type of government they're now stuck with, are the ones who live the effects of the embargo. They are the ones who bear the blunt of the hunger and disease, and the ones that will supposedly rise in arms against their government. Needless to say, these people, the ones the embargo aims to activate, are those who might be more inclined to be part of a democracy and oppose the communist regime… those who may be already making a statement by choosing not to work for the government.
Given our stated position on human rights, and what we already know about embargoes, why do we continue trying to starve Cubans into submission? Do we really want to bring this old idea and its brutal methods with us into this new millennium?
It should be noted that in spite of the embargo, Cubans have maintained a higher level of health care than any country in South America, and the literacy rate in Cuba is 98% (higher than in the state of Texas!).
The economic embargo against Cuba is the longest running embargo in modern history, and is as misunderstood by working Americans as is the aggressiveness of U.S. foreign policy towards Cuba. Would it be fair to punish these working Americans for the crimes of the U.S. government by depriving them of food, medicine and the hope of a future for their children? Are we not shocked enough by the horrendous acts of terrorism (9/11/01) to make us take a look at this? Cubans understand the difference between the American people and the American government, and they would never choose to punish one for the crimes of the other.
The situation was not helped by President Clinton's cowardly lack of leadership in this area, and President Bush's debt to Cuban-Americans for the pseudo-victory which gave him the presidency. Both presidents have, so far, followed the failed policy of Cold War and big-stick diplomacy over the wisdom of peace and engagement.
From a Cuban perspective, these recent governments are not much different from the ones that tried to buy Cuba from Spain, and the current congress is no different from the one that imposed the Platt Amendment on Cuba and appropriated Guantanamo Bay for military use over 100 years ago.
The world is united in its support for Cuban solidarity. For ten consecutive years the United Nations General Assembly has recommended an end to the embargo. On November 28, 2001, the United Nations again voted 167 to 3, against the embargo, with three nations abastaining. Voting with the U.S. was Israel and the Marshall Islands. (It should be noted that in spite of voting for the embargo, Israel continues to trade with Cuba.)
There's an old saying in Latin America: "The United States never remembers and Latin America never forgets!" This explains the depth to which Cuba (and Latin America) distrust U.S. governments.
We need to stop being so angry with Castro and make peace, just as we've made peace with other communist regimes. We may find that it is a part of ourselves we end up finding peace with.
What about the human rights issue?
What about the human rights issue?
There are some serious human rights issues to be considered here… but if this was a genuine U.S. and Cuban-American concern, it would engage Cuba diplomatically and commercially, and it would discourage the right-wing terrorism aimed at the island. This is clearly just an excuse to continue hostilities against Cuba, as is the recent proposal by Helms and Lieberman (!) to send $100 million to anti-Castro interests on the island.
According to the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/cuba.html) most of the problems involve laws against "the rights of freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and of the press." These are not issues that I take likely. Like most Americans, I tend to take my freedom of speech for granted, but I hope to see positive changes in Cuba. Since most Cubans have now had access to an education (which they would've never been allowed under U.S. influence) they will have lots to contribute to the global dialogue. But sadly and realistically, these changes will not begin until the U.S. threat is removed.
I recommend that anyone who wants to see beyond the haze of reasons and excuses for the longest and meanest embargo in history (reasons which have changed conveniently through the years) start by comparing the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba to the same organization's report on the U.S. (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/index.html). It seems that we have a lot more human rights issues to worry about here in the U.S. (such as racism) yet we invoke this absurd moral superiority to hide the fact that a few, wealthy & white (though not very wise or humane) are directing foreign policy.
This moronic policy tends to lump all Cubans into pro/against Castro segments, and doesn't allow us to learn a thing from the past 40 years. This resembles our tradition of lumping all communism together. There are many in Cuba who are part of the political regime and would voice opposing opinions if not for Cuban laws aimed at protecting the island from traditional U.S. hostilities. These hostilities have a long history deeply felt in Cuba.
The human rights issue is worsened by the embargo and traditional U.S. arrogance in thinking it has the right to dominate the island. However well this arrogance is disguised in right-wing Cuban-American rhetoric, it doesn't belong in this millennium.
And just how concerned were we with the human rights situation in Cuba before Castro? The fact is that nobody worried about human rights abuses in Cuba until it could be used as a propaganda tool to excuse U.S. actions.
There are some serious human rights issues to be considered here… but if this was a genuine U.S. and Cuban-American concern, it would engage Cuba diplomatically and commercially, and it would discourage the right-wing terrorism aimed at the island. This is clearly just an excuse to continue hostilities against Cuba, as is the recent proposal by Helms and Lieberman (!) to send $100 million to anti-Castro interests on the island.
According to the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/americas/cuba.html) most of the problems involve laws against "the rights of freedom of expression, association, assembly, movement, and of the press." These are not issues that I take likely. Like most Americans, I tend to take my freedom of speech for granted, but I hope to see positive changes in Cuba. Since most Cubans have now had access to an education (which they would've never been allowed under U.S. influence) they will have lots to contribute to the global dialogue. But sadly and realistically, these changes will not begin until the U.S. threat is removed.
I recommend that anyone who wants to see beyond the haze of reasons and excuses for the longest and meanest embargo in history (reasons which have changed conveniently through the years) start by comparing the Human Rights Watch report on Cuba to the same organization's report on the U.S. (http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/index.html). It seems that we have a lot more human rights issues to worry about here in the U.S. (such as racism) yet we invoke this absurd moral superiority to hide the fact that a few, wealthy & white (though not very wise or humane) are directing foreign policy.
This moronic policy tends to lump all Cubans into pro/against Castro segments, and doesn't allow us to learn a thing from the past 40 years. This resembles our tradition of lumping all communism together. There are many in Cuba who are part of the political regime and would voice opposing opinions if not for Cuban laws aimed at protecting the island from traditional U.S. hostilities. These hostilities have a long history deeply felt in Cuba.
The human rights issue is worsened by the embargo and traditional U.S. arrogance in thinking it has the right to dominate the island. However well this arrogance is disguised in right-wing Cuban-American rhetoric, it doesn't belong in this millennium.
And just how concerned were we with the human rights situation in Cuba before Castro? The fact is that nobody worried about human rights abuses in Cuba until it could be used as a propaganda tool to excuse U.S. actions.
What about compensation for U.S. property that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960?
What about compensation for U.S. property that was confiscated by the Cuban government in 1960?
Cuba's government has always acknowledged its obligation to compensate U.S. property owners and has indicated its willingness to sit down and negotiate. It has long since worked out satisfactory compensation agreements with all other countries that had similar claims.
Back in 1960 the U.S. imposed the embargo because Cuba had nationalized all U.S. properties. In 1977 the U.S. insisted that the embargo would not be lifted until the compensation issue had been worked out.
Cuba has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate a just compensation once the embargo is lifted and normal relations established. But on November 30 2001 the U.S. government turned down a Cuban offer to negotiate compensation for properties confiscated by the Revolution 40 years ago.
The U.S. State Department often claims, falsely, that Cuba has refused to pay such compensation. This is an outright lie, fed to the American people in order to gain support for the terrorist nature of the David/Goliath relationship between the two countries.
Through the years of the embargo and the Cold War against Cuba, the typical strategy of the State Department has been to pretend that it truly wants to negotiate compensation. In fact, there's no indication that the U.S. wants to bring this chapter to close, choosing instead to continue choking the Cuban people.
Cuba's government has always acknowledged its obligation to compensate U.S. property owners and has indicated its willingness to sit down and negotiate. It has long since worked out satisfactory compensation agreements with all other countries that had similar claims.
Back in 1960 the U.S. imposed the embargo because Cuba had nationalized all U.S. properties. In 1977 the U.S. insisted that the embargo would not be lifted until the compensation issue had been worked out.
Cuba has repeatedly stated its willingness to negotiate a just compensation once the embargo is lifted and normal relations established. But on November 30 2001 the U.S. government turned down a Cuban offer to negotiate compensation for properties confiscated by the Revolution 40 years ago.
The U.S. State Department often claims, falsely, that Cuba has refused to pay such compensation. This is an outright lie, fed to the American people in order to gain support for the terrorist nature of the David/Goliath relationship between the two countries.
Through the years of the embargo and the Cold War against Cuba, the typical strategy of the State Department has been to pretend that it truly wants to negotiate compensation. In fact, there's no indication that the U.S. wants to bring this chapter to close, choosing instead to continue choking the Cuban people.
What is the "wet foot/dry foot" policy?
What is the "wet foot/dry foot" policy?
To some, this may sound like something out of a Marx Bros. Movie, but here it goes. Current immigration laws that apply only to Cubans dictate that if an illegal immigrant (in this case somebody who braved the ocean currents by boat) makes it all the way across to American soil (the beaches of Key West, for example) then that illegal immigrant can legally stay.
If, on the other hand, he or they are caught at sea by the officials, then they are returned to Cuba. Dry foot-wet foot. Get it? Could Groucho ever come up with something so outrageous? This policy (which some claim encourages illegal Cuban immigration) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on November 2, 1966.
What if you're an illegal immigrant from, say, El Salvador or Bolivia? You are returned to the place you came from.
To some, this may sound like something out of a Marx Bros. Movie, but here it goes. Current immigration laws that apply only to Cubans dictate that if an illegal immigrant (in this case somebody who braved the ocean currents by boat) makes it all the way across to American soil (the beaches of Key West, for example) then that illegal immigrant can legally stay.
If, on the other hand, he or they are caught at sea by the officials, then they are returned to Cuba. Dry foot-wet foot. Get it? Could Groucho ever come up with something so outrageous? This policy (which some claim encourages illegal Cuban immigration) was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on November 2, 1966.
What if you're an illegal immigrant from, say, El Salvador or Bolivia? You are returned to the place you came from.
Are you anti-USA?
Are you anti-USA?
Let me be clear as fresh water on this so that even those who add 2 plus 2 and get 22 will understand. I am not, in any way, anti U.S.A. I am pro-peace, pro-love and understanding. I am pro-putting away our toys of destruction along with our violent ideas of the past and learning to talk to each other.
It seems odd that simply presenting the information in this site would solicit such a question, even when it's carefully disguised. Part of the problem may be the way historical issues are traditionally dealt with in American schools and textbooks. (How do you explain to kids that we tried to conquer or wipe out everyone who didn't look or act like us?) Last year I received an email from a Cuban-American Junior High School student suggesting that I invented the Platt Amendment in order to support Castro! I can only imagine what happened when he mentioned this to his history teacher. I can also guess that the Platt Amendment isn't very likely to come up as a topic in a Jr. High School in Florida.
I do deplore the methods of imperialism that have tainted most of the relations between the U.S. and Cuba, and I resent the arrogance that has influenced these relations. The U.S. is my home. Cuba is Patria, homeland. I have equal amounts of love and fondness for both, and I revel in my multi-cultural existence. I don't like the political fanaticism associated with anti-movements, and I feel we've arrived at a point in history where peace should be our goal, not political domination and economic warfare.
I don't want my home to continue being the mean bully simply because it's the biggest kid on the block. I don't want my patria to be destroyed (meaning absorbed, colonized, Americanized, democratized or anything that produces social changes through external influences) simply because they have different ideas.
How can I tell the story of my people without pointing out those who've tried to dominate and/or destroy us? Americans, I believe, are also entitled to the truth, and would not agree with the U.S. role so far in my people's history.
The time is long past for relations between the U.S. and Cuba to move beyond the ideals of "manifest destiny" and the politics of Miami. We (North Americans) must accept that the time of U.S. influence over the island ended with Cuban Revolution, and we have no right to manipulate the island for our purposes. We have, in fact, enough problems of our own to solve (look at the Human Rights Watch report on the U.S. http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/index.html).
The U.S. is my home. I like how Americans are able to disagree with each other and still sit down for a meal, or a football game. I have friends with views to the right and to the left of me on many crucial issues. Some go to church regularly. Others never go. Some are pro-choice. Some are pro-life. Some prefer digital cable, others "the dish." We don't try to kill or undermine each other.
Americans seem to agree that it's ok to disagree. No American has told me to go back to Cuba because I oppose the embargo, or because we disagree on other issues. Cuban-Americans, curiously, suggest that to me on a regular basis with varying degrees of implied threat and insult. How can they claim to support democracy in Cuba when they can't support democracy in the U.S.?
Throughout the recent presidential-election confusion, the American people behaved with dignity and honor. No lynchings, no bombings, no arrests… an exemplary display of civility (political spinning, loud-mouthing and legal maneuverings notwithstanding). Schools and libraries remained open. Mail was delivered. Restaurants continued serving food and hospitals continued to treat the sick. (Of course, we didn't have a continent-sized superpower trying to manipulate our political situation through forced starvation and hidden military actions.)
Democrats and Republicans eating lunch together, going to movies and museums… Instead of bloody street wars, we went to work, we paid our bills, took out our trash… we saw it through, somehow, without violence.
This, I believe, the world would do well to imitate. And if there's a lesson to be learned here, we should apply it to our relations with Cuba.
The time for peace is now.
Let me be clear as fresh water on this so that even those who add 2 plus 2 and get 22 will understand. I am not, in any way, anti U.S.A. I am pro-peace, pro-love and understanding. I am pro-putting away our toys of destruction along with our violent ideas of the past and learning to talk to each other.
It seems odd that simply presenting the information in this site would solicit such a question, even when it's carefully disguised. Part of the problem may be the way historical issues are traditionally dealt with in American schools and textbooks. (How do you explain to kids that we tried to conquer or wipe out everyone who didn't look or act like us?) Last year I received an email from a Cuban-American Junior High School student suggesting that I invented the Platt Amendment in order to support Castro! I can only imagine what happened when he mentioned this to his history teacher. I can also guess that the Platt Amendment isn't very likely to come up as a topic in a Jr. High School in Florida.
I do deplore the methods of imperialism that have tainted most of the relations between the U.S. and Cuba, and I resent the arrogance that has influenced these relations. The U.S. is my home. Cuba is Patria, homeland. I have equal amounts of love and fondness for both, and I revel in my multi-cultural existence. I don't like the political fanaticism associated with anti-movements, and I feel we've arrived at a point in history where peace should be our goal, not political domination and economic warfare.
I don't want my home to continue being the mean bully simply because it's the biggest kid on the block. I don't want my patria to be destroyed (meaning absorbed, colonized, Americanized, democratized or anything that produces social changes through external influences) simply because they have different ideas.
How can I tell the story of my people without pointing out those who've tried to dominate and/or destroy us? Americans, I believe, are also entitled to the truth, and would not agree with the U.S. role so far in my people's history.
The time is long past for relations between the U.S. and Cuba to move beyond the ideals of "manifest destiny" and the politics of Miami. We (North Americans) must accept that the time of U.S. influence over the island ended with Cuban Revolution, and we have no right to manipulate the island for our purposes. We have, in fact, enough problems of our own to solve (look at the Human Rights Watch report on the U.S. http://www.hrw.org/wr2k1/usa/index.html).
The U.S. is my home. I like how Americans are able to disagree with each other and still sit down for a meal, or a football game. I have friends with views to the right and to the left of me on many crucial issues. Some go to church regularly. Others never go. Some are pro-choice. Some are pro-life. Some prefer digital cable, others "the dish." We don't try to kill or undermine each other.
Americans seem to agree that it's ok to disagree. No American has told me to go back to Cuba because I oppose the embargo, or because we disagree on other issues. Cuban-Americans, curiously, suggest that to me on a regular basis with varying degrees of implied threat and insult. How can they claim to support democracy in Cuba when they can't support democracy in the U.S.?
Throughout the recent presidential-election confusion, the American people behaved with dignity and honor. No lynchings, no bombings, no arrests… an exemplary display of civility (political spinning, loud-mouthing and legal maneuverings notwithstanding). Schools and libraries remained open. Mail was delivered. Restaurants continued serving food and hospitals continued to treat the sick. (Of course, we didn't have a continent-sized superpower trying to manipulate our political situation through forced starvation and hidden military actions.)
Democrats and Republicans eating lunch together, going to movies and museums… Instead of bloody street wars, we went to work, we paid our bills, took out our trash… we saw it through, somehow, without violence.
This, I believe, the world would do well to imitate. And if there's a lesson to be learned here, we should apply it to our relations with Cuba.
The time for peace is now.
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
