Actualidad

Los resultados de las elecciones en New Jersey y Virginia, donde los candidatos republicanos se alzaron con la victoria, muestran la complejidad política de los Estados Unidos. Si bien a un año del triunfo en las elecciones del pasado Noviembre el presidente Barack Obama mantiene su popularidad, eso no implica que el partido demócrata tenga asegurada las próximas elecciones legislativas. Todavía hay muchos factores que pueden definir este proceso, pero desde ya es claro que pueden haber muchas sorpresas.

Lo anterior me gustaría traerlo al contexto cubano pero antes deseo agregar algunas noticias aparecidas en estos últimos días.

La primera esta relacionada con la drástica caída en el comercio exterior cómo reconoció Rodrigo Malmierca, titular de este ramo:

"Las estadísticas muestran al cierre del tercer trimestre de 2009 que el intercambio comercial de bienes se redujo un 36 por ciento, en relación a igual período del año anterior, siendo las importaciones casi el 80 por ciento del total".

Según Malmierca, "la economía cubana se caracteriza por obstáculos para acceder al financiamiento internacional, la reducción de demanda y los precios de los principales productos de exportación, y el incremento de importaciones prioritarias como los alimentos, con la obvia reducción de la capacidad de compra".

Otro funcionario también reconoció que las ventas de los EE UU y España a Cuba cayeron visiblemente.

No debemos pasar por alto la situación económica por la que atraviesa Venezuela, quien constituye el principal socio económico de la isla. El déficit en el sector eléctrico, sector vital en el desarrollo de cualquier nación, es un hecho que manifiesta el estancamiento por el que atraviesa la nación, debido a políticas económicas poco eficientes y erráticas basadas principalmente en objetivos políticos más que en la realidad económica del país.

Entonces que podemos esperezar en los próximos tiempo para Cuba?

Creo que la respuesta resulta más que evidente. Si el gobierno cubano insiste en la parálisis que ha mostrando, tanto en lo político como económica y no se ajusta a la realidad que lo engloba las predicciones no son nada halagüeñas.

Con un presidente Obama que tendrá que prestar más atención y usar su capital político en resolver problemas y compromisos domésticos, y con un gobierno cubano que no acaba de responde a la política de “gestos por gestos”, no se avizoran grandes cambios en las relaciones de ambos países y por ende en el comercio bilateral.

Por otra parte, mientras el gobierno cubano no muestre un serio compromiso con los inversionistas extranjeros cumpliendo a cabalidad con sus pagos en los tiempos acordados, seguiremos viendo una caída drástica de las inversiones y el comercio foráneo.
Los tiempos que se avecinan no vendrán cargados de buenas noticias para el pueblo cubano, a no ser que un milagro ocurra y el gobierno entienda que ya ha sido suficiente y urge cambiar de rumbo.

Para finalizar agrego un titular: El comisario europeo de visita en la isla manifestó que el gobierno cubano debe hacer 'gestos importantes' en derechos humanos. Esos gestos deberían estar referidos a los presos políticos y la situación en las cárceles, y son necesarios para eliminar la Posición Común, dijo Karel De Gucht.

Relaciones Cuba & UE

Las autoridades cubanas han insistido en la necesidad de finalizar con la posición común de la Unión Europea hacia Cuba. El canciller español Moratinos quien recientemente culmino una visita a la isla manifestó su compromiso de impulsar la disolución de dicha política.

Sin embargo el nuevo tratado de Lisboa, que reforma la Unión Europea (UE) y la dota de un presidente y de un alto representante de política exterior, debe entrar en vigor el próximo 1 de diciembre. Suecia, que estará a cargo de la presidencia semestral de la UE, anunció que convocará a una cumbre europea posiblemente el 12 de noviembre para decidir quiénes ocuparán los dos nuevos cargos.

Posiblemente Moratinos ponga un gran empeño en su compromiso pero honestamente creo que la tendencia va en otra dirección.

China y su "modelo".

Una nueva estadística sobre el numero de mil millonarios chinos arrojan que pese a la crisis actual el numero a crecido hasta 130.

China ha mantenido por varios años un crecimiento de su producto interno bruto PIB impresionante. Si bien las nuevas políticas económicas han revertido el caos causado por las estrategias irracionales durante el periodo de Mao, no son pocos los retos que han surgidos debido a las practicas poco democráticas bajo las cuales se han dando estas transformaciones. Entre los nuevos problemas que han tomando dimensiones inesperadas sobresale el crecimiento dramático de la contaminación, cuyos índices resultan ya escandalosos y cuyos efectos son palpables en la población.


Wikipedia

No es de extrañar que muchos analistas planteen que el ritmo de crecimiento de China es insostenible y que la principal razón de los problemas que enfrentan esta relacionado con la concentración de poder económico y político lo cual imposibilita las existencia un estado de derecho.

Las principales causas de esta concentración de poder están dadas por la falta de democracia y transparencia en la que ocurrió el proceso de transición de una economía estatal centralizada, a una economía de mercado, controlada mayoritariamente por la elite política. Dicha falta de transparencia fue y sigue siendo aprovechada por grupos de poder para sacar grandes dividendos dentro de esta bonanza económica.

Otras de las principales debilidades de la economía China es que esta basada principalmente en el sector de las exportaciones y no en la capacidad que tienen los trabajadores chinos de consumir los bienes que producen debido a los bajos salarios que perciben. En otras palabras, China se ha convertido en la gran maquiladora mundial, donde los trabajadores son solo algo más que elementos de producción.

Es también alarmante la falta de derechos del ciudadano chino, quien resulta un ente insignificante frente al poder absoluto del estado y la clase dominante.

Cuando ponemos todos estos factores juntos y conociendo la apremiante necesidad de cambios en nuestro país nos salta la interrogante sobre que futuro nos espera y que papel deseamos jugar.

En que concluirá el sueño socialista y revolucionario que tantos dramas ha costado a la sociedad cubana?

Creo que hay muchas cuestiones que claman por un debate inmediato.

Antonio Gonzalez Rodiles

Polonia y su modelo de revolución

Como obra de carpintería, esta mesa no es una gran cosa. El barniz oscuro está ya pelándose en varios sitios, la superficie está un poco gastada y las vigas a ras de suelo, de estilo rural, me recuerdan a una mesa de pub británico manchada de cerveza. Ahora bien, como pieza política, es una obra maestra.

Construido especialmente por carpinteros polacos para las primeras negociaciones del país en torno a una mesa redonda en 1989 -las primeras en la Europa comunista-, y hoy conservado como pieza de museo en el palacio presidencial de Varsovia, este gran mueble en forma de rosquilla, formado en realidad por 14 trozos separados, es el símbolo del nuevo tipo de revolución pacífica y negociada que en 1989 se impuso al viejo estilo violento de 1789. La mesa redonda sustituyó a la guillotina.

Para la mayoría de la gente, "1989", si significa algo, seguramente significa la caída del muro de Berlín. Algunos quizá recuerden la revolución de terciopelo en Checoslovaquia, otros tal vez los brotes de violencia en las calles de Bucarest y el sangriento fin del dictador de Rumania, Nicolae Ceausescu. Aquellos dramáticos acontecimientos de la segunda mitad del año eran buen material televisivo, y lo que ocurrió en Bucarest pareció en algunos momentos una imagen de 1789.

En cambio, las tortuosas negociaciones de la primera mitad del año en Polonia y Hungría no se parecieron nada a una revolución. Una mesa redonda en torno a la que hablan unas personas no es demasiado televisiva. Incluso las trascendentales elecciones semilibres de Polonia el 4 de junio de 1989, que desembocaron directamente en la llegada del primer ministro no comunista en lo que todavía era el bloque soviético, fueron relativamente tranquilas. Estoy seguro de que, cuando se celebre el vigésimo aniversario este 4 de junio, los medios de comunicación hablarán mucho más de la matanza de la plaza de Tiananmen, que sucedió aquel mismo día.

Si digo esto no es para fomentar la queja típicamente polaca de que "el mundo no valora la contribución de Polonia" (al final del comunismo en Europa, la Segunda Guerra Mundial, el Renacimiento, la astronomía, etcétera). Es para destacar que, al centrarnos en lo telegénico y lo conocido, perdemos de vista la auténtica novedad de lo que ocurrió en 1989 en Europa central y ha vuelto a ocurrir desde entonces en otros lugares, con numerosas variaciones. Por un lado, el poder blando de un movimiento social de masas (y en Polonia llevaban una década de protestas y huelgas masivas) controlado por sus dirigentes para lograr el objetivo de una transición negociada. Por otro, unas personas que seguían en posesión de los instrumentos básicos del poder duro -las armas, el aparato del Estado, la policía secreta-, pero estaban dispuestas a negociar un acuerdo de reparto de poder (aunque no preveían con qué rapidez iba a producirse el cambio ni hasta dónde iba a llegar). En un tercer lugar, los representantes del pueblo y las instituciones intermedias -que en Polonia incluían la inmensa autoridad de la Iglesia católica-, que ayudaron a mediar y generar confianza. Todos ellos, simbólicamente sentados en torno a una mesa construida a toda prisa y no especialmente bien.

En cada instante, nadie podía estar seguro de que el siguiente paso no fuera a ir demasiado lejos, ser demasiado para los partidarios de la línea dura en el propio país o para el Kremlin. Nadie había hecho algo así hasta entonces. Nadie sabía si era posible hacerlo. Como decía un chiste de la época: sabemos que es posible convertir un acuario en sopa de pescado; la cuestión es si se puede convertir la sopa de pescado en un acuario.
Además de inspeccionar la carpintería en el palacio presidencial, he venido a ver al actual presidente, Lech Kaczynski, un populista conservador que levantó su campaña, hace cinco años, en torno a las acusaciones de que no había habido una ruptura suficientemente clara y radical con el pasado comunista. Sin embargo, ahora me ha dicho que, en su opinión, el acuerdo logrado por la oposición encabezada por Solidaridad en aquella mesa redonda fue el mejor al que podían aspirar sin arriesgar demasiado en las circunstancias de principios de 1989. ¿Acaso el juicio histórico del presidente actual asume el compromiso, adoptado por todos en la mesa redonda, de que el arquitecto de la ley marcial en Polonia a principios de los ochenta, el general Wojciech Jaruzelski, se convirtiera en presidente del país en el verano de 1989 como garantía para la Unión Soviética? En efecto, aunque habría preferido que "por poco tiempo".

Como historiador, me interesa oír a todas las partes, así que fui a ver también al propio general Jaruzelski, hoy un hombre enfermo de 85 años, pero todavía firmemente interesado en ofrecer su versión de la historia. Me recordó la resistencia que había existido en las filas de su propio partido, el ejército y la policía, y el hecho de que cuando él, como presidente, y el nuevo primer ministro no comunista del país, Tadeusz Mazowiecki, fueron a una cumbre del Pacto de Varsovia en Moscú en diciembre de 1989, otro de los participantes en la mesa era nada menos que Nicolae Ceausescu. Unas semanas más tarde, Ceausescu estaba muerto.

Aquel triunfo pacífico, nacido en una mesa redonda y afianzado por unas elecciones semilibres, no era inevitable, ni mucho menos. Como en Suráfrica, como en Irlanda del Norte, como en Chile, el nuevo modelo anti-jacobino de revolución, con sus encuentros surrealistas entre ex presos y sus antiguos carceleros y torturadores, exigía compromisos dolorosos y moralmente desagradables. Sin un gran momento de catarsis revolucionaria. La línea entre los males del pasado y las bondades del futuro quedó difuminada. Es lo que el antropólogo Ernest Gellner, al hablar de la revolución de terciopelo en su Checoslovaquia natal, llamó "el precio del terciopelo".

Por eso, el problema del pasado nunca desaparece del todo. España después de Franco es la excepción que confirma la regla (y, visto el debate político que hay hoy en España sobre el franquismo, quizá ni siquiera sea una excepción tan clara). Por eso, 20 años después, estoy más convencido que nunca de que el complemento necesario para una mesa redonda es una comisión de la verdad. No unos juicios penales interminables y de dudosa legalidad, como el que probablemente acompañará al general Jaruzelski hasta su tumba (salvo en el caso de verdaderos crímenes contra la humanidad). No unas depuraciones arbitrarias y partidistas. Sino, una vez que están seguros los fundamentos básicos de un país libre, una confrontación pública, exhaustiva, justa y simbólica de la nueva democracia con su difícil pasado, con todas sus complejidades humanas.

Cuando, como consecuencia del modelo negociado de revolución, no se puede obtener justicia, al menos puede pedirse la verdad. Es lo que sucedió, por supuesto, en Suráfrica. Ojalá la Iglesia católica polaca hubiera tenido a un arzobispo Desmond Tutu dispuesto a proponer y presidir una tarea semejante a principios de los años noventa, cuando ya estaban sentadas las bases constitucionales, económicas y políticas de un país libre. Pero el arzobispo Tutu polaco, para entonces, residía en Roma.

El nuevo modelo de revolución de Polonia en 1989 sigue siendo un acontecimiento importantísimo e innovador. Pero estudiar historia sirve también para aprender de los errores, que a veces sólo se ven años después. Así que la próxima vez que un país en pleno proceso de salir de una dictadura y un conflicto civil encargue a sus carpinteros una mesa redonda especial, conviene que empiece a pensar también en los muebles necesarios para una comisión de la verdad. Es más, quizá puedan incluso utilizar la misma mesa. -

TIMOTHY GARTON ASH 24/05/2009.
Tomado del Periodico EL Pais.

Propuesta de diálogo.

La propuesta de Bill Richardson sobre un diálogo entre el exilio y el gobierno cubano es sin duda interesante y muy apropiada para el momento que vivimos. Para todos es evidente que la ecuación cubana tiene cuatro variables importantes, el pueblo cubano dentro de la isla, el del exilio, el gobierno cubano y el gobierno de los USA. Estas cuatro variables deben entrar a formar parte de la solución para lograr un resultado duradero y creíble.

Para el gobierno cubano este es el momento de construir el diálogo. La elite política sabe que el tiempo es indetenible y que nada les puede garantizar más el futuro de sus familias que lograr cierto nivel de entendimiento. ¿Pero cuanto se esta dispuesto a sacrificar?

Si las autoridades cubanas siguen empecinadas en desacreditar cualquier intento serio de diálogo recurriendo a la descalificación de los interlocutores, no será muy difícil vaticinar el final de este intento. El diálogo entre cubanos es la única llave que puede abrir una solución a la situación existente.

Si bien establecer un mejor entendimiento con los USA ayudará a crear un ambiente mucho más propicio, solo un proceso de acuerdos entre los cubanos de diferentes signos políticos puede garantizar la paz y la estabilidad de la Cuba del futuro.

Creo que la propuesta del señor Richardson pudiera ser reforzada con la mediación de un grupo de personas notables tanto dentro como fuera de la isla. Esto le daría sin duda un nivel de compromiso a ambas partes de cara a la sociedad cubana y a la comunidad internacional y crearía un ambiente con mayores garantías.

Dentro de este análisis quedan varios aspectos importantes por detallar, entre ellos ¿quien será el interlocutor del gobierno dentro de la isla y en exilio? Este y otros puntos cruciales me gustaría retomarlos en próximos comentarios.

Russia Transition

Some quotes from the article: Cultural Contradictions of Post-Communism:
Why Liberal Reforms Did Not Succeed in Russia. By Nina L. Khrushcheva

(to read the article)

What kind of capitalism Russia needs is now our choice to make. The first type we have already had: a nomenclatura bureaucratic capitalism, in which power, property, and money belong to the government and other officials. Second is the oligarchic type, when power, property, and money belong to a few corporations, companies, and individuals… The best one to have is when all power, property and money belong to as many people as possible. I would call this people’s capitalism.

The lesson Russia and its liberal advisors learnt the hard way is that reform programs require synthetic and creative adaptation, that they are deeply moral and political, not just model-oriented and technical in nature. Another lesson is that “disorder,” which had traditionally always “saved Russia” can and should no more be a solution to its current or future problems, for in the 21st century the country needs a new source of order appropriate to a complex modern society.

The most important issue that Russia faces today, in a new post reform period, is a change in mentality. Russia’s outdated psychology has to date reduced to zero all previous attempts for political and economic change. This problem has always made Russia a place where stable and predictable life is not a norm, in which the difficulties have been routinely blamed on the evils of the patriarchal state, dictatorship, the West, corruption, or bad human material.

If the country is to continue with democratic and capitalist policies, the next era of transition should be concentrated on reforming the mentality of both the elite and the people, which in turn will provide a viable environment for a new, modern, and responsible type of conduct on both sides. Future behavior can no longer be based on fear of the authorities or change but should be that of a people who are accountable for their actions and lives.

Only then, an agreement for mutual benefit—a social contract—between a respected individual and the government of a law based state will become possible.

A simple truth that has been long appreciated by other nations has yet to be welcomed by Russian society: “What man loses by the social contract is his natural liberty and an unlimited right to everything he tries to get and succeeds in getting; what he gains is civil liberty and the proprietorship of all he possesses

Summary of one article about Cuba's Economic Reforms.

Cuba's Economic Reforms in A Chinese Perspective

Jiang Shixue
Chinese Academy of Social Sciences
(This is the paper presented to the Wilton Park Conference on Cuba, October 2002.)

Despite the geographical distance and different population size, Cuba and China have at least two things in common: They are socialist countries and both are on the road of economic reforms. While Cuba began to reform its economy in the early 1990s, China started its reforms and opening-door as early as in 1978. (In December 1978 the Third Plenary Session of the 11th Central Committee of Communist Party of China, CPC, was held in Beijing).
　　
Compared with Cuba, China has made greater progress in stimulating economic development, raising people’s living standards and upgrading comprehensive national strength. From 1978 to 2000, for instance, China’s average annual growth rate was 9. 5%, and for some of the years it stood at 15%. At the same time, inflation rate was often kept below 10% with the exception of only a few years at over 15%. As a matter of fact, few economies in the world have achieved such remarkably high growth rate without high inflation.
　　
It took China 9 years (from 1978 to 1987) to double its average per capita income. But it was 58 years for the United Kingdom (from 1780 to 1838), 47 years for the United States (from 1839 – 1886), 34 years for Japan (from 1885 – 1919) and 11 years for South Korea (from 1966- 1977) to do the same. Then, from 1987 to 1996, China doubled its average per capita income again in 9 years.

I. An Overview of Cuba’s Economic Reforms

The pushing forces that made Cuba walk upon the path of reforms came mainly from the outside. Cuba signed its first major trade and economic agreement with the Soviet Union in February 1960, under which Cuban sugar was provided in exchange for Soviet crude oil and petroleum products, wheat, fertilizer, iron, machinery, and trade credits. It was widely believed that the Soviet Union maintained the Cuban economy by paying “higher than market prices” for Cuban sugar. At the same time Cuba paid “lower than market prices” for Soviet petroleum products. In addition, Cuba joined the socialist trade and economic organization, the Council for Mutual Economic Assistance (CMEA), in 1972 and conducted most of its trade with CMEA countries.
　　
The disintegration of the Soviet Union and break-up of the trade relations within CMEA induced hardest difficulties for the Cuban economy. Between 1991 and 1994, the Cuban GDP declined by 35%, imports dropped by 75%, oil imports fell by half, and people’s caloric intake was reduced from roughly 2800 to 1735 per day. Faced with this harsh situation, Cuba decided to “defend socialism” by reforming the economy.
Cuba’s economic reforms in the past decade can be summarized in the following areas:
　　
1) Decentralization in the agricultural sector;
2) Legalization of the use of foreign currency;
3) Authorization of self-employment;
4) Improving fiscal management ;
5) More integration with the world market;
6) Attracting more foreign investment;
7) Establishing free trade zone (FTZ);
8) Restructuring the economic structure
　　
In China, soon after the June 4 incident of 1989, some leftists were increasingly opposed to the nation’s reform process. In early 1991, concerned with the possibility of retreat on the path of reforms, Deng Xiaoping, who was then celebrating the traditional Spring Festival in Shanghai, said to the Shanghai municipal leadership, “Do not believe that planning belongs to socialism and market belongs to capitalism. Both are instruments. Market can also serve socialism.” He called upon the city officials to be “more liberal, braver and swifter” in pushing forward the reform process.

It seems that Cuba’s reforms are not based on any clear and well-defined theory, although Cuban leader Fidel Castro and other senior Cuban officials have repeatedly said that Cuba’s reforms should be carried out within the principles of socialism. They have expressed their wishes to utilize some forms of the market mechanism, but insist that Cuba will not walk towards market economy. From their perspectives, socialism and market economy are not compatible.

2. Tortoise or hare: Choosing the right speed of reforms
　　
In discussing the speed of economic reforms, people tend to use such words as “gradual” or “shock therapy”.

According to Barbara Stallings and Wilson Peres, the “aggressive” reformers undertook many reforms in a relatively short period of time, while the “cautious” reformers implemented reforms more gradually.

Despite these definitions, however, the specific criteria for defining the reform process as being “gradual” or “shock”, are still controversial in practice.

While many transition economies in the former Soviet bloc are seen as “aggressive” reformers practicing “shock therapy”, China is considered as a “gradual” and “cautious” reformer. As Deng Xiaoping aptly put it, China carried out its reforms like “crossing the river by feeling the stones in the water”. Indeed, because of the following reasons, it is easy to understand why China should wage a cautious and gradual reform process. First of all, as a huge country with more than 1.2 billion people, China should maintain social stability as one of the priorities.

Apparently, Cuba has chosen the gradual approach. This choice is proved to be reasonable and correct. Cuba’s reforms were launched under economic difficulties and harsh conditions, i.e., decades of U.S. blockade and abrupt disappearance of aids from the Soviet bloc. (Remember that, compared with China, Cuba’s initial conditions of reforms were much worse.) If Cuba had followed the style of “shock therapy” as Russia and some other Easter European countries have done, the situation could have gone uncontrolled. However, as some Chinese scholars have pointed out, the Cuban leadership should be more liberal and more brave in such areas as ownership restructuring and opening to the outside world.

3. “Let some people get rich first”, but benefits of reforms should be equally distributed.
　　
Before the 1980s income distribution in China was remarkably equal, or even egalitarian. The Gini coefficient for the urban-rural inequality was only 0.
　　
Deng Xiaoping was wise enough to proclaim that “To get rich is glorious”. He also said, “Let some people get rich first”. Indeed, as many Chinese, including scholars, fully understand, if some people had not been allowed to get rich first, or egalitarianism had still dominated the society, China would not have been able reduce poverty so progressively.
　　
First of all, the gap between urban and rural areas has widened.
　　
Second, while income inequalities within either the urban or the rural areas have become worsened, it is even more conspicuous within the latter.
　　
Third, the whole picture of unequal income distribution for the nation is alarming.
　　
The fact that economic reforms tend to generate worse income distribution has been proved in Mexico, Brazil, Argentina and other Latin American countries that have been marching on the reform paths. Indeed, economic reforms and opening to the outside world tend to create opportunities for people to get rich. But the privileged group tend to acquire more opportunities than the others.
　　
For Cuba, it seems that it is also necessary to “let some people get rich first”. China’s experience has proved that this policy will effectively stimulate people’s initiative to work and therefore to speed up the economy.
　　
4. Improving the ownership structure is the key to successful reforms.

Since China and Cuba are socialist countries, they cannot rely on privatization to improve the ownership structure.15 Rather, they must keep public ownership as the foundation of their socialist economic system. At the same time, however, being in the primary stage of socialism, they need to develop diverse forms of ownership with public ownership in the dominant position.
　　
In the past two decades the non-public sector has increased ostensibly and it is increasingly recognized as an important component of the socialist market economy (see table 1). In some places, particularly in the eastern part of China, the non-public sector has become the most important engine for the development of local economy.

Table 1 China’s changed ownership (%)
1978 1999
Public ownership 78 40
Non-public ownership 22 60

Cuba has been trying to diversify its ownership system. Compared with China, Cuba needs to quicken its steps in this regard. As some Chinese scholars put it, the Cuban leadership should take a more tolerant attitude towards the non-public sector.
　　
5. Reforming the state-owned enterprises is essential for the establishment of a socialist market economy.

As mentioned earlier, Cuba and China are socialist countries and the state-owned enterprises (SOEs) should play an important role in the economy. However, before reforms were initiated, the SOEs could not raise their efficiency, and some of them had long been money-losers, incurring a heavy fiscal burden on the state budget.
Many countries in Latin American and Eastern Europe have privatized the majority of their SOEs. In some extreme cases, almost all the SOEs have been sold to private investors. Results of privatization have been mixed.

In China, the Party and the Government have recognized that well-executed reform of the SOEs is of vital importance to building a socialist market economy and consolidating the socialist system, and the best way to reform them is to establish a modern corporate system.
　　
By World Bank standards, most of Cuba’s industrial plants are considered “large”. Their production cannot be considered as efficient, mainly due to the lack of modern equipment, input and innovation as well as poor management. Many Chinese scholars agree that it is better for Cuba to integrate the reforms of the SOEs as an integral part of the whole reform process, and lagging behind would produce negative impact upon reforms in other areas. In addition to raising efficiency by adopting a modern corporate system, Cuba might need to make greater use of the private and foreign capital and even close down some of the big “money-losers”.
　　
It is encouraging to see that as early as in 1998 the Council of State of Cuba passed the Decree Law 187, stipulating detailed measures to reform its SOEs. Its principles include:

1) Enterprises have to achieve self-financing within the approved social objective.
2) Incentives for the workers are the heart of the business system.
3) Profits, after payment of taxes, are distributed by the appropriate body. One part is set aside for enterprises’ reserves.
4) Appropriate differentials are to be created to encourage the qualified and responsible workers.
5) Labor and wages policies are to be closely linked.17
　　
According to the Chinese experience, Cuba should get well prepared to tackle the problem of rising unemployment as SOEs reforms tend to turn a large number of workers out of their post. If re-employment opportunities and social security benefits could not be provided to them, social stability might be in danger.
　　
6. Corruption is detrimental to reforms.
　　
Corruption simply means the use of public office to pursue private gain in ways that violate laws and other formal rules.

Unfortunately, China is also suffering from corruption, which has aroused public anger and generated economic costs. The idea that corruption can facilitate economic development is wrong. A well-known Chinese economist by the name of Hu Angang categorized corruption activities in China into four types:

1) illegal exemption of taxes and tariffs;
2) underground economic activities like smuggling, drug trafficking and so on;
3) embezzling public funds; and
4) rent-seeking, mostly in the form of market monopoly.
　　
As many commentaries put it, corruption and smuggling are two malignant tumors growing together, and the only way to wipe out smuggling is to eliminate corruption.

On the other hand, the officials should build what the media suggest an “ideological Great Wall” to resist decadent ideas, greed and self-indulgence.

“When the window is opened, a screen is needed to keep the misquotes and flies out of the house”.

As socialist countries, Cuba and China should have their own values compatible to their political system and traditional cultures. Indeed, for them, socialist modernization requires both a prosperous economy and a flourishing culture, and economic reforms need to serve this objective.
　　
In China, the Party has long been promoting socialist culture with Chinese characteristics. As Jiang Zemin said at the 15th National Congress of CPC, “ In building socialism with Chinese characteristics, we must redouble our efforts to raise the ideological and ethical standards and scientific and educational levels of the whole nation and provide a powerful ideological driving force and strong intellectual support for economic development and all-round social progress.
　　　　
With the reform process proceeding forward, Cuba would be increasingly faced with a similar task of “keeping the mosquitoes and flies out of the house” Particularly, U.S. government sponsored radio and television broadcasting to Cuba (Radio and TV Marti), begun in 1985 and 1990 respectively. So Cuba would confront additional threat.

III. Conclusions

As Deng Xiaoping put it, “Do not believe that planning belongs to socialism and market belongs to capitalism. Both are instruments. Market can also serve socialism.” In order to speed up socialist constructions, China and Cuba need to implement economic reforms, and it is encouraging to see that both nations have achieved remarkable results.
In the light of China’s experience and lessons, the following implications are important:

1) pay more attention to theoretical innovation for the reform process;
2) choose the right speed of reforms;
3) “let some people get rich first”, but benefits of reforms should be equally distributed, 4) improve the ownership structure in a more effective way,
5) privatization is not panacea, but the SOEs should be reformed,
6) corruption is highly detrimental, and
7) “put a screen on the window when it is opened”.

Globalization is proceeding more swiftly than ever. Both China and Cuba must take an active attitude towards this tendency. As President Castro said, “Globalization is an inevitable process. It would be pointless to oppose a law of history.”18 But globalization poses both opportunities and challenges to socialism. As long as Cuba and China can stick to the policy of reforms and opening to the outside, socialist constructions will achieve great progress in the new century.

Gobierno & Sociedad Civil.

La noticia de ayer es la nueva convocatoria que ha hecho el gobierno cubano para discutir los problemas nacionales. No es claro cual será el objetivo directo de esta convocatoria, pues hace apenas dos años se realizó algo similar y todavía no se han visto los frutos. Por otra parte cada vez que se realizan estos “debates” se deja claro que cualquier tipo de queja o proposición deben estar dentro de los limites que marca el gobierno y el partido, lo cual elimina la posibilidad que se pueda cuestionar y responsabilizar al propio gobierno por sus políticas erróneas.

El gobierno cubano siempre ha evitado la posibilidad de que cualquier individuo o grupo puedan cuestionar su autoridad y ha usado como su principal recurso la descalificación y el ataque directo a sus oponentes. Esto ha imposibilitado crear cual tipo de proyectos alternativos que puedan tener un impacto importante en la sociedad cubana.

Uno de los síntomas mas evidentes de este férreo control es la escasez de iniciativas colectivas. Generalmente solo encontramos proyectos individuales que en el mejor de los casos pueden agrupar a cierto numero de seguidores, pero que no llegan a alcanzar mayor trascendencia en la población. Uno de los pocos ejemplos que pudo lograr notoriedad dentro de la sociedad cubana ha sido el proyecto Varela y todos conocemos cual fue su final.

Para el gobierno ha sido muy útil este monopolio del poder, pero ¿hasta que punto seguirá siendo beneficioso?

Los posibles escenarios de una Cuba futura son diversos. Sin dudas dentro de los más probables esta el de un cambio en la estructura del control político y económico, posibilidad que cada día toma más fuerza debido al estatismo que impera ante la profunda y larga crisis que vivimos.

Frente a este escenario, ¿que resulta más beneficioso para el gobierno cubano? Tener interlocutores con legitimidad y apoyo con quien establecer acuerdos dentro de un proceso de transito organizado a una sociedad plural, o tener que iniciar un proceso de tal envergadura con un interlocutor débil. En este último caso se correría el peligro de que parte de la población no sienta como legítimos los acuerdos alcanzados, pues no se sentiría representada ni por el gobierno, ni por la oposición.

Esa fue la ventaja que existió en Polonia con el movimiento Solidaridad. El gobierno polaco tuvo interlocutores que aglutinaban a las principales fuerzas opositoras, esto garantizó la legitimidad del proceso de diálogo y de posteriores reformas.

En Cuba se necesita una oposición organizada y madura, con proyectos claros que constituyan una opción política viable, de lo contrario se estará caminando sobre un terreno incierto. La posibilidad de inestabilidad social sería una espada de Damocles que pendería sobre nuestra nación.

La sociedad civil cubana deben estar conciente de la necesidad de reclamar su protagonismo dentro del momento actual. Seguir postergando tales responsabilidades constituyen un ejercicio fatal que no traerá ningún beneficio, sino solo una mayor agudización de nuestros problemas.

Pero para que lo anterior ocurra en forma ordenada y pacifica el gobierno debe permitir de una vez por todas la aparición de estas nuevas alternativas que puedan garantizar el bienestar del pueblo cubano. De nada sirve intentar detener un proceso que terminará imponiéndose.

Cuban Communist Party Congress

Jorge Calaforra

In the context of the new events related with Cuba I would like to comment an interesting article by Larry Cata Backer about the postposition of the Cuban communist party congress. I quote some parts of his article:

“I have written before that it is possible to build the foundations of rule of law constitutionalist states within the normative framework of Marxist Leninist states. See Larry Catha Backer, The Party as Polity, the Communist Party, and the Chinese Constitutional State: A Theory of State-Party Constitutionalism, Journal of Chinese and Comparative Law, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2009. In the context of the project of polity building within China, I noted that:

The basis of Chinese state-party constitutionalism requires a reconception of an understanding of constitution - to include both the document constituting the state and that constituting the Party as equivalent components that together form the national constitution as understood in the West. It is also based on a different understanding of the character of the Communist Party - not as a political party or as a private actor but as an integral part of the institutional structure of government, and more importantly, as the holder of political citizenship. These insights produce substantial consequences for the ways in which Chinese constitutionalism are understood and evaluated under global constitutionalist standards, which are discussed in the last section of the paper. These include the reflection of the party-state construct (1) in a division of the character of citizenship between economic and social citizenship, claimed by all persons, and political citizenship, which can be exercised through the Party, (2) in an understanding of political organization in which the state power and its institutions are subordinate to political authority, (3) in an institutionalization of political authority within a collective that serves as the source and conduit of constitutional values to be applied by the holders of state authority, and (4) in a system in which Party elaboration of rule of law values is contingent on state and party self discipline. Chinese constitutionalism, understood as state and party constitutionalism can, together, serve as a basis for understanding the way in which rule of law governance is legitimately possible where the disciplinary focus of constitutional duty is focused, not primarily on the state apparatus, but instead centers on the Party apparatus. Rule of law constitutionalism in China, then, is better understood as state-party constitutionalism, with a necessary focus on party rather than state, grounded in separation of powers principles in which the administrative function is vested in the state and political authority over all is vested in the Party under law. But thus constructed, even state-party systems can claim a certain legitimacy as a constitutionalist system - though one whose substantive values are inconsistent with those of secular transnationalist constitutionalist states. This is constitutionalism with Chinese characteristics.

Id. The great vehicle of this scientific development of a polity from out of a Party structure is both an institutionalized Party structure and a willingness to move to institutional values. that increasingly are open to individuals willing to support the basis of political organization in the state. Backer, Party as Polity, supra.”

As Hu Jinato noted, under the constitutional system, the CCP must:

“Improve the mechanism of restraint and oversight and ensure that power entrusted by the people is always exercised in their interests. Power must be exercised in the sunshine to ensure that it is exercised correctly. We must have institutions to govern power, work and personnel, and establish a sound structure of power and a mechanism for its operation in which decision-making, enforcement and oversight powers check each other and function in coordination. We will improve organic laws and rules of procedure to ensure that state organs exercise their powers and perform their functions and responsibilities within their statutory jurisdiction and in accordance with legal procedures. We will improve the open administrative system in various areas and increase transparency in government work, thus enhancing the people's trust in the government. Hu Jintao, Hold High the Great Banner of Socialism with Chinese Characteristics and Strive for New Victories in Building a Moderately Prosperous Society in all Respects, Report to the Seventeenth National Congress of the Communist Party of China on Oct. 15, 2007, at Part VI, 6).”

“But that requires a move toward an institutionalization and bureaucratization of the Cuban Communist Party. That, in turn, requires the elaboration of an institutional framework for Party organization in which governance principles, like American constitutional principles, can be developed and applied uniformly to Party, state and cadres. While the Chinese model might not transpose easily to Cuba, the forms of that model might ensure the construction of an institutional framework that would permit the development of a rule based system. A key element of that development in China has been the work of the Party Congresses, especially from the time of the leadership of Deng Xiao Ping. Whatever its flaws from an American perspective, the system has been important in the institutionalization of organizational structures and governance principles that have bureaucratized and diffused power within the Chinese system. The broader and more inclusive the Party Congress, the more likely the possibility of building a more broadly based institutional structure for the exercise of political power among a larger number of people committed to the preservation of that system. And, of course, the broader that participation, within the Party apparatus, the greater the ambit of political participation among the people.”

“It is possible that the leadership is unprepared for the deployment of this exercise of democratic centralism in the lead up to the Party Congress. But postponement could suggest a lack of maturity in the institutions of the Party. It could also suggest a need to pay greater attention to the mechanics for dealing with changes in the leadership. In a state seeking stability at a delicate moment, even the symbolism of a postponement might be regrettable. And indeed, from outside the Island, the postponement reinforces the sense that the current governance framework is fragile. The recent removal of Felipe Perez Roque and Carlos Lage suggests the fundamental nature of that fragility.”

“Perhaps the most prominent of those ousted, Foreign Minister Felipe Perez Roque, was the youngest of Cuba's top leaders and had been widely mentioned as a possible future president. Perez Roque, 43, was replaced by his own deputy, Bruno Rodriguez. Vice President Carlos Lage, 57, apparently kept his job as vice president of the ruling Council of State, but was replaced as Cabinet Secretary by Gen. Jose Amado Ricardo Guerra, who had been a top official in the military that Raul Castro ran for decades. Lage was credited with helping save Cuba's economy by designing modest economic reforms after the Soviet Union collapsed.Perez Roque was once personal secretary to Fidel Castro and a former leader of the Communist Party youth organization. He had been foreign minister for almost a decade. Carlos Lage and Felipe Perez Roque replaced among other changes in Cuban government, Cuba News Headlines, March 22, 2009.”

“Postponement after a shake up of this magnitude might suggest, especially abroad, an inability to control or disciplinary issues extending down to the Party rank and file. Indeed, it appears that Party officials at the highest levels have been very sensitive about the removals.”

"An official video that presents the reasons for the ouster of Vice President Carlos Lage and Foreign Minister Felipe Pérez Roque has been shown for the past several weeks to selected groups of Cuba's ruling elite, according to information received by El Nuevo Herald from Havana. . . .The video is shown in two versions: one lasting almost three hours, the other, seven. Both contain compromising images and statements made by Lage and Pérez Roque about retired leader Fidel Castro, current President Raúl Castro and First Vice President José Ramón Machado Ventura, according to those familiar with the footage. Both versions show conversations between Lage and Pérez Roque in which they make jokes about Fidel Castro's infirmities and his years in power, and question Raúl Castro's ability to govern the country." Video shows why two top Cuban officials were ousted,The Miami Herald, May 23, 2009.

“But it also adds fuel to the increasingly vocal sentiment among opponents of the current government that it is moving not towards Chinese style Marxist Leninist rule of law Party-State, but to a conventional model of military dictatorship with socialist rhetoric, a sort of perverted Peronis.”

“More importantly, perhaps, lingering dissatisfaction, hinted at by Lage and Perez Roque, might also be found among Party faithful. That dissatisfaction might have exploded into the open at a Party Congress. Party Militants, it seems, have the right to "Demandar en todo momento la aplicación de la política del partido y el cumplimiento de lo establecido en estos estatutos y los reglamentos, así como de los acuerdos del partido." Estatutos del PCC, at art. 8 ("Demand at any time the implementation of the policy of the party and compliance with the CCP rules and regulations, as well as the agreements of the party). Yet, if one cannot trust one's cadres, the bearers of political rights within a Marxist Leninist state, then one runs the risk of moving away from a rules and group based system, however limited the extent of political rights, to one which is seen as increasingly individual rather than group centered. And even if the reasons for the postponement was to sort through the difficulties of the current economic crisis and its effects in Cuba, the postponement itself serves to suggest that the situation is graver within the Island than has been reported. That might make potential economic partners more jittery. The next few months will suggest the way in which the Party leadership in Cuba intends to fashion the Party-State institutional framework for the future. They might do better to reconsider the Stalinist model that the postponement suggests.”

Taken from Law at the End of the Day

Postponing the Cuban Communist Party Congress

Larry Cata Backer

Relaciones Cuba & USA III

La visita de varios obispos norteamericanos a la Habana y la del gobernador de Nuevo México Bill Richardson son noticias muy importantes. Si bien la atención ha estado sobre el concierto que dará el cantante colombiano Juanes en la Habana, son estas dos las que realmente crean una base para después hacer política.

La visita de Richardson es realmente una visita de alto nivel. Richardson es una persona de importancia dentro del partido demócrata y su condición de hijo de madre mexicana le da una posición excepcional para lidiar con el problema cubano. Quizás no sea un emisario oficial entre ambos gobiernos, pero si será escuchado a los más altos niveles de la actual administración.

Sin duda estamos ya viendo movimientos de más envergadura dentro de este juego de ajedrez. Tanto es así que Fidel Castro después de más de un año fuera de la televisión ha aparecido nuevamente.

¿Por que afirmamos esto? Si todos recuerdan ya hace unos años Raúl Castro menciono en varias ocasiones que para el gobierno norteamericano era mejor negociar mientras Fidel estuviera vivo. Esto ocurrió cuando aún la administración Clinton estaba en la Casa Blanca. Sin embargo todos estos comentarios desaparecieron por obvias razones durante la administración de Bush.

El gobierno cubano necesita mostrar que el líder máximo esta presente y activo. Lo necesita para sentir cierto alivio principalmente en lo que respecta a su posición frente a las negociaciones con el gobierno americano. No es otra cosa que retomar el argumento que Raúl ya había expuesto y a su vez dar muestras de que no se encuentran en una posición débil.

Como decía, el juego esta entrando en un momento más interesante y se deben mostrar algunas de las posiciones defensivas y ofensivas para que el contrario valore la capacidad del rival. Lo negativo que sigo viendo dentro de todo este escenario es que la sociedad civil cubana sigue ausente. Hay pocas evidencias o más bien ninguna de que el cubano, ese que desea mas libertad en todos los aspectos, pueda tener un papel activo en estas negociaciones. Sigue siendo vital que se le dé el protagonismo principal, pues solo si esto ocurre se estará caminando sobre terreno firme, de lo contrario siempre queda la duda de cual será el final de todas estas maniobras.

Relaciones Cuba & USA II

La noticia más notable del día de hoy es la relacionada con el viaje de los obispos norteamericanos a la Habana. Quiero retomar el artículo anterior pues sin duda es parte de los movimiento que como había comentado, se están realizando.

Es cada vez más evidente que las autoridades cubanas están realmente interesadas en descongelar las relaciones con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos, pero sin querer correr el más mínimo riesgo político, es decir sin tener que ceder en cuestiones que sin duda son de importancia fundamental, tales como una mayor apertura a las libertades individuales de los cubanos.

Para lograr este objetivo se ha iniciando una nueva ofensiva. Ya habíamos visto la visita de varios presidentes a la Habana, como una muestra del apoyo a la figura de Raúl en su nuevo puesto. A raíz de estas visitas los países latinoamericanos llegaron al consenso de dar un espaldarazo al nuevo mandatario, principalmente clamando por el cese del embargo norteamericano. Sin embargo, esta estrategia ha tenido solo avances muy lentos y no ha logrado concretar una mayor flexibilización en las relaciones.

Debido a esta lentitud se ha implementado una nueva estrategia, buscar el apoyo directo de grupos ó individuos dentro de los Estados Unidos, para impulsar el cambio de política. Sin embargo el gobierno persiste en pensar que puede lograr tales cambios sin tener que sacrificar la mas mínima cuota de su poder político. Creo que es una estrategia errónea y que no tendrá muchos resultados.

Hasta el día de hoy la administración del presidente Obama ha mostrado una gran paciencia esperando por los gestos que el mismo Raúl Castro menciono en uno de sus viajes a Brasil.

¿Piensa el gobierno cubano que con una ofensiva como esta podrá tener éxito sin tener nada que sacrificar a cambio?

Me gustaría terminar con una respuesta de la secretaria de estado en otra conferencia en el Council on Foreign Relations en Octubre del 2006 cuando se desempeñaba como senadora.

QUESTIONER: Where do you think we ought to go in respect of Cuba?

CLINTON: Well, I think we’re in a waiting game. And I don’t think there’s anything that’s going to change until we know what happens to Fidel. There’s not going to be any changes on their side, and there are not going to be changes on our side. This is, you know, a very intractable political problem here in our country. I hope there will be some opening to try to figure out a more effective approach to exercise more real influence by us in Cuba post-Castro, but I think we’re just in a holding pattern right now.

Relaciones Cuba & USA

En una conferencia ofrecida por la secretaria de estado Hillary Clinton en el Council on Foreing Relations se refirió a la relación con Irán en los siguientes
términos:

La administración del presidente Obama está comprometida en una política de acuerdos responsables con el gobierno iraní. La política de aislamiento no ha sido exitosa, por lo que hemos optado por una táctica diferente. Sin embargo esto no garantiza que se pueda lograr un diálogo fructífero. No obstante pensamos que es muy importante ofrecerles a los líderes iraníes una relación de acuerdos y compromisos con la posibilidad de unirse a la comunidad internacional ó de permanecer aislados. Creemos también que las conversaciones directas son muy importantes y sobre todo trasmitirles que por nuestra parte estamos listos para conversar, pero que el momento es ahora. La oportunidad no permanecerá abierta para siempre.

Cuando oía estas declaraciones no pude obviar que podían ser perfectamente aplicables a Cuba. Las autoridades cubanas deben tener muy claro que el momento de conversar con el gobierno de los Estados Unidos es este. Aunque Raúl Castro ha dicho en varias ocasiones que no hay nada que negociar, por otra parte ha insistido que está en condiciones de sentarse a hablar sobre cualquier tema. ¿Con que objetivo se lanzan estas posiciones contradictorias?

Resulta interesante una entrevista de la periodista miamense María Elvira al cantante Amaury Pérez Vidal, quien se encuentra organizando el controvertido concierto que ofrecerá Juanes en la Habana. Durante la entrevista Amaury se mostró conciliador y manifestó su respeto por la diferencia de criterios y opiniones. Aunque Amaury enfatizó que sus respuestas y criterios serían a título personal, todos sabemos que una entrevista con estas características solo es posible después de las debidas autorizaciones. A esto se adicionan las declaraciones de Silvio Rodríguez sobre como pudiera contribuir el concierto a la distensión de las relaciones.

Por otra parte es conocido que Juanes recibió luz verde por parte del Departamento de Estado del gobierno norteamericano. Otro evento que ya ha sido anunciado para Octubre es la presentación en la Habana de la Orquesta Filarmónica de New York. Todo esto ocurre después del restablecimiento de las conversaciones migratorias entre ambos gobiernos.

Todo parece indicar que hay varias cartas moviéndose. Aunque no haya todavía nada en concreto, debemos esperar que de un momento a otro algunos indicios comiencen a aflorar. Es como los movimientos que se realizan al inicio de un partido de ajedrez antes de entrar en el nudo del juego.

Sin embargo es urgente que se acaben de enviar las primeras señales hacia aquellos cubanos que desde dentro de la isla, ya sea en una calle o una cárcel, claman por sus derechos de participar activamente en el rumbo del país. Mientras esas señales no aparezcan no será posible ningún diálogo conciliatorio, ni llegar a ningún acuerdo coherente.

Antonio Gonzalez-Rodiles

Language and politics.

I had heard an interview with linguistic professor George Lakoff related to the use of the language in politics. At that time, i found many important issues and I thought about writing something about it. Due to a lack of time, the idea was forgotten. After some time, I encounter something else about Lakoff and I decided to write something about his arguments.

Lakoff stated a very important principle: The structure of our brain is not neutral, it exist in a specific content that firstly includes our body. Therefore, to speak about rationality without an emotional load is abstract and non realistic.

The second argument states that once a person creates his mental structures, they are consolidate as reference where the experience and the information received are accommodated. As a consequence, the language is not neutral in itself but it is adjusted to a code system that are preliminarily defined. This two points might appear simple but they play a fundamental role in the comprehension of how the language works.

The second argument reflects the way any theory is constructed in mathematics. The natural road is to create axioms that are considered as “truth”, without previous demonstration. Afterwards, we construct our definitions which are used to form tools needed to operate our theory.

Using Lakoff’s arguments, we can understand that always the reference point will bring come together with an emotional aspect and there always be a feedback in the process. This ideas are applied directly into politics.

The first step to start a political project is the construct the framework. This frame should support the logics and therefore its language. His is the language used for the communication with the public and which is based on an axiom that you created before. If you would like your language to be assimilated, then you have to reinforce your framework.

A practical example can be seen in our country. Please think for one second the meaning of the word revolution. You will get immediately a series of symbols. In this case, the word is related to a leader. This is a clear example of a chosen framework.

One step further, and we should analyze until which point a framework constitute a static structure. Lakoff, in his reflections does not analyze this issue although for me it is essential. As he said, the brain is not an isolated structure, therefore, reality and emotions can be in conflict with the framework. This is the moment where ideologies collapse. When the reality conflicts with the logical structure, then the only choice is to create a new structure based in axioms that supports reality. Is like when you are not a children anymore and become an adult. The old logic disappears and the old evident arguments become naive or obsoletes. Therefore it is totally unhelpful to try to revive a collapsed frame . In the best case, there is a waste of time. Antonio Gonzalez-Rodiles
Translated by Jorge Calaforra

Mecanicism vs Autogeneration

After more than one century of the existence of the Republic, we have arrived again to a crucial moment. We need to reform many elements of our nation to leave behind those ballasts that make us to repeat the same errors. I believe that the solution in theory is simple but in practice involves a systematic effort. The key point seems to be building a system based on solid and reliable institutions and not in individual prominences, institutions that are rest in a system of weight and counterweights.

What are the essential ingredient that should have this system of institutions and balances? The fundamental ingredient is the individual. The individual is the only real base of an stable society and when I say individual I refer evidently to those that are able at the same time to conceived themselves as social being and individuals. I believe that this is the key point of the societies: to achieve that equilibrium between the private and the social being. On the other hand this point of equilibrium is not static, but has evolved according to the needs of each epoch.

The society as any other system fallows its own laws at the global level that are established by complicated connections and mechanisms. To intend to control this highly complex system by a central command is a terrible error, that has been the main error of the socialism and the monopolistic capitalism. This mechanistic and clock mentality, as in the Descartes thought, have been overcome in science many years ago, nevertheless not in the social thought. The mechanists thinks about the world as a complex clock system, that although complex, permitted us to find an exact description.

What are the totalitarian systems but a reflection of that vision? The totalitarian vision think that a human being or a close group of people can exercise control and effective management above all the society. Even they can achieve results of organization and more efficient justice than in the case of the open society. Nevertheless in practice this social engineering has turned out in repeated and extensive failures.

When we analyze a complex system as the society and we take into account all the variables that intervene we understand that is completely impossible to build a model that give us a just description and at the same time permit us to do predictions with acceptable accuracy. Too many random processes exist that can bring completely unexpected results.

What is then the lesson? The solution rests in taking as point of reference the minimum intervention on the system and then begin to add the necessary constrictions, in other words, to add alone those aspects that need to be controlled and to leave the remainder to find its own equilibrium. It is evident that do not exist a golden rule to know with accuracy those aspects but it is clear that a democratic system will give us the tools and the media to find those balances. The learning is evidently a process of test and error.

Only a democratic and open society will dictate the ways of solution to each error that find. Only the open society has the capacity to rebirth. This marvelous capacity is part of the mechanisms that have the life systems.

The failure of the totalitarian systems is produced due to the fact that they cancel those mechanisms of auto generation. When centralizing all the powers, the resource to reform is annulled, and the system became too heavy and inert, as a consequence, generates its own collapse. This analysis includes the apparition of new social relations that can cause the collapse of a system that face another with a greater efficiency in the balance of the individual and the society.

The human society is like an organism that travels for a process of growth and evolution. I believe that the vision of our world with own resemblance characteristics, where we can see global level phenomena or dynamic that then will be repeated to micro level or vice versa, sometimes this vision results very useful to understand apparently insoluble phenomena.

If we observed with a magnifier a moment of the growth of the humanity we would come to the conclusion that we are near of the Apocalypse, nevertheless when we analyze in global form the system we can conclude that the movement has carried us to very clear improvements which evidently are not exempt of new conflicts. All this thanks to that we inhabit in a more open world and interrelated.

In the particular case of our country I consider that the main step to leave this great stagnation is to free the individual initiative, to permit that the individual can develop his potentials in all the aspects of his life, spiritual, economic, political, in short, each facet of his life. To achieve this purpose we have to have as premise the so much political like economic exclusion of all kind of totalitarianism.

It is a fact that Cuba will be in a nearby future a plural and more open society, of how be that transit will depend on the success that we have to rebirth us as nation.

The Mariel's Port?

The news about the invitation of the Cuban government to the Arabian Emirates to invest in the modernization of the Mariel’s port is not new.

The history begins over two years ago when a business group of Dubai were offering to buy various ports in the USA. Everything was moving forward until the purchase was rejected in the American Congress, where some congressman alleged a national security conflict.

After this refusal seems that this group saw in Cuba the possibility to settle down, though they wont be in American territory it will be a very nearby place. Since that, it was known that the interest was the Mariel’s port.

For the Cuban government this was a perfect offer. It would be able to build a modern port that will have a key role with the new American market that should appear in brief and at the same time they would be establishing relations with business groups that do not show any interest in the political reality of the country where they are established.

It is not a secret for nobody the poor democratic letters that have many of the petroleum countries of the Middle East. Castes nailed in the power, with a total control of the politics and the economy, have dominated for decades this part of the world. They have been another hybridize of the monopolistic models as Chinese, Russian, Mexican, etc.

Is this the type of investors that desires the Cuban government? Is this what is called to be more selective with the foreign investors? What type of law and economic reforms will be drawn the future policies of the country? These are some of the questions that the Cubans should have extensive knowledge.

In parallel to this, we have seen various international newspapers referring to the movements that are occurring in the relations of Cuba with the USA. Without doubts the Cuban government knows that this is the moment to initiate a new relation and is trying to prompt them.

Nevertheless something that turns out to be significant is that all the Cuban officials that have given statements on this issue have coincided indicating that do not exist themes of the internal policies on the discussion table. Then, no plan with regard to the individual liberties of the Cubans exists.

What scenario they are presenting us for the immediate future?

I believe that is not necessary to analyze to deeply to see that the new period that has begun brings as seal the phrase of "Economic Opening and Political crush"

Nevertheless it will remain to see until where they will decrease the economic controls, because the signals are not very encourage as soon as refers to new opportunities for Cubans