Cuba Planning March Challenging Biden To Cancel Hostile U.S. Policies

The Call for a Cuban Combatant March

On December 14 (the last day of the IX Plenary Session of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of Cuba) Cuban President Diaz-Canel delivered a speech in which he said that the Cuban people “expect changes and solutions to their problems, which cannot always come from the nation [of Cuba]. But at all levels, we must act with sensitivity to these problems, we must involve them increasingly in the response. Popular participation is simply indispensable.”[1]

Diaz-Canel then said there was the U.S. blockade that “has been intensified, there is an economic war, they despise us, they vulgarly, obscenely and hatefully poison us on social media. In response to this hostile policy, we call on the heroic Cuban people to march in combat on December 20. It will be a strong condemnation of the imperial blockade and the unjust inclusion of Cuba in the list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism.”

Therefore, he called for a “March of the Combatant People for next October 20.”

Granma Editorial Endorsing the Combatant March[2]

 Here is what that editorial said:

“Far from fulfilling his electoral promise regarding relations with Cuba, President Joseph Biden, in his four years in office, has kept in force and in application almost all of the draconian economic coerción mesures imposed by the Trump administration, and has approved others, such as the recent legislation that legalizes the shameless theft of the Havana Club brand in the US market.”

“The policy of maximum pressure applied, the cornerstone of which is the reinforcement of the blockade, has had markedly harmful effects on the quality of life of the Cuban people, their access to food, health services, medicines, decent housing and numerous essential goods, and has caused the migration of thousands of people, sometimes in extremely risky conditions.”

“It is the rigorous concretization of the imperialist action design towards Cuba, outlined in the well-known memorandum of the Assistant Undersecretary of State, Lester Mallory, 64 years ago, who defined that the only way to confront the Cuban Revolution “… is through the disenchantment and dissatisfaction that arise from economic malaise and material difficulties… all possible means must be quickly employed to weaken the economic life of Cuba… a line of action that, being the most skillful and discreetly as possible, achieve the greatest advances in depriving Cuba of money and supplies, in order to reduce its financial resources and real wages, provoke hunger, desperation and the overthrow of the Government.”

“Since then, the strategy has consisted not only of bringing hunger and misery to the Cuban people, but also and, above all, in trying to make it seem that the cause of such misfortunes is the “inefficient management” of the Cuban government, and not the so-called “sanctions” of Washington.”

“But the numbers are clear in showing who is holding back the necessary development of the Cuban nation. The blockade affects our people to the tune of more than 421 million dollars a month, more than 13.8 million dollars a day, and 575,683 dollars in damages for every hour of its application.”

“The blockade is the most comprehensive, complete and prolonged system of unilateral and extraterritorial coercive economic measures ever applied against any nation.”

“”No country, even with economies much more prosperous and robust than Cuba’s, could face such a ruthless, asymmetric and prolonged aggression, without a considerable cost to the standard of living of its population, its stability and social justice,” says the report presented by Cuba this year to the United Nations General Assembly, where the overwhelming majority of UN member countries condemned this policy of force and suffocation.”

“In addition to the considerable damage caused to the economy, finances and trade by this aberrant policy, there are the restrictive measures resulting from the decision to include Cuba, in a malicious manner, in the infamous arbitrary and illegitimate list of countries that supposedly sponsor terrorism. It was a perverse move by the Trump administration, a few days before leaving the White House.”

“This designation is cynical, because Cuba, far from sponsoring terrorism, has been and is the victim of recurring terrorist activities financed and organized from US territory, with the consent of the authorities of that country.”

“Cuba has a clear and firm position in the fight against terrorism in all its forms. It has served as a key intermediary in the peace talks between the Colombian government, the ELN and the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia (FARC), in the same spirit with which it called on the member states of CELAC a decade ago to declare the region a Zone of Peace, ‘based on respect for the principles and norms of International Law.’”

“It is a cruel act because it is designed to maximize the suffering of the Cuban people. The inclusion of our country on the list of nations that support terrorism not only makes international transactions difficult, has export obstacles and financial restrictions, or hinders assistance to the country with humanitarian aid, but also threatens or penalizes citizens of countries that enjoy the privilege of traveling to Cuba, which includes Cuban nationals. It also interferes with banking transactions of natural persons and new non-state economic actors. It prevents the contracting of online services and restricts academic and scientific exchanges.”

“In May 2024, the State Department removed Cuba from the list of states that “do not fully cooperate” with the United States in the fight against terrorism, further highlighting the nefarious and opportunistic nature of the 2021 designation.”

“In defending the rational change of attitude, Secretary of State Antony Blinken not only cited the current position of the Colombian government, but also highlighted Cuba’s police cooperation and the non-existence of terrorist elements on Cuban territory.”

“But this is not enough. Cuba continues to suffer as a result of its cynical, cruel and illegal exclusion from the international economy and finances, given its continued inclusion on the arbitrary list of alleged sponsors of terrorism.”

“President Biden can put an end to that lie and heed the call of dozens of governments, numerous former presidents and prime ministers, hundreds of members of parliament, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops and other religious leaders, and thousands of organizations around the world and in the United States itself.”

“In the days remaining in his term, President Biden can remove Cuba from the List of State Sponsors of Terrorism; he has the authority to do so. If he wants to leave some decency as a legacy in the final days of his political life, he can take that symbolic step. There is still time to do so.”

“The Cuban people will continue to fight against unjust aggression, against the genocidal blockade, against manipulation and lies, against spurious and coercive lists, against the million-dollar funds to subvert internal order and feed disinformation operations, and will demand with all their might justice and peace for Cuba and for our world.”

“This is what will happen on December 20, when, in their name, the people of the capital will march in combat along the Havana seafront to express, in front of the United States Embassy, ​​their demand for an end to hostility, their condemnation of imperial ignominy, and their unyielding spirit of struggle and victory.”

“We will march with the profound conviction, instilled by Fidel, that there is no force in the world capable of crushing the power of truth and ideas.”

Reaction

As a U.S. citizen and resident, this blogger was involved in Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church’s establishing a partnership with a Cuban Presbyterian Church in the city of Maranzas over 20 years ago, including making three mission trips to that church, and has maintained contact with fellow Westminster members so involved today and with visits of Cuban pastors to our church. As a result, this blogger has paid close attention to the ongoing bilateral relations and written many blog posts about same.

Although I do not subscribe to the negative comments about the U.S. in the current Cuban effort to promote the upcoming Combatant March, I do support the U.S. in the last days of the Biden Administration cancelling  its current designation of Cuba as a state sponsor of terrorism because I think it is not justified and because Cuba has been going through a horrible time, politically and economically, and needs all of the help it can get. I also would like the embargo to be cancelled, but that would take congressional action, which is not possible now.

Tomorrow we will see the actual march.

=============================

[1] With no solutions to the crisis that is overwhelming Cubans, Diaz-Canel calls on them to a ‘combatant march’, Diario de Cuba (Dec. 14, 2024).

[2] Editorial: A march against imperial ignominy, Granma (Dec. 16, 2024); Extreme pressure on Biden: the Cuban regime shows the purpose of the December 20 march, Diario de Cuba (Dec.17, 2024).

 

 

More Criticism of U.S. Means of Addressing Immigration Needs of Afghan Evacuees  

This blog previously discussed the complexity of meeting the U.S. immigration needs of Afghan evacuees, estimated at 65,000 to 199,000 less than two weeks ago.[1] This analysis has been underscored by John T. Medeiros, an experienced U.S. immigration attorney and the Chair of the Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter of the American Immigration Lawyers Association.[2]

According to Medeiros, this subject was the focus of a recent conference call with nearly 100 immigration lawyers across the U.S.

He noted that he and many other immigration lawyers have been focused on assisting “family members and friends of Afghan allies in applying for humanitarian parole, which the federal Immigration Service says “is used to bring someone who is otherwise inadmissible to the United States for a temporary period of time due to an emergency.”

This conference call emphasized the following current status of this situation:

  • “Within the past two months there have been over 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole filed with the USCIS.”
  • “Each application includes a filing fee of $575; in the past two months the USCIS has received an estimated $9.8 million in fees.”
  • “While there is an option to request a fee waiver, almost all applications filed with a fee waiver have been rejected by the USCIS.”
  • “For the pending 17,000 applications there are a total of six USCIS adjudicators.”
  • “Since Sept. 1, USCIS has not processed any applications for individuals still in Afghanistan.”
  • “Since that same date, USCIS has processed ‘a handful of applications’ for Afghan nationals displaced in a third country.”
  • “USCIS is expected to soon announce its plans to adjudicate those applications that remain pending, with priority given to individuals who are not physically in Afghanistan. The rationale for this decision is that third-country nationals would be able to obtain the required travel permission in the form of a visa at a U.S. consular post in the third country, while visa services have been suspended within Afghanistan.”
  • “It is unclear if [U.S.] visas will be issued to displaced Afghan nationals who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

This horrible situation, said Medeiros, caused the participants in this conference call to demand the following actions:

“[We] call on Department of Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas to immediately allocate sufficient resources to the USCIS for the swift adjudication of the pending 17,000 applications for humanitarian parole and to approve applications for fee waivers for applicants who meet the eligibility criteria.”

“After these applications have been approved, we call on Secretary of State Antony Blinken to expedite the vetting process and the issuance of visas to displaced Afghan nationals, including those who are not in possession of a valid passport.”

“[We] call on the office of the White House to authorize the U.S. Department of Defense to send military flights to countries with concentrations of displaced Afghan nationals, and evacuate those with valid claims to asylum, Special Immigrant Visas or any other immigration benefit.”

“[We] call on Congress to swiftly pass the Afghan Adjustment Act, which would provide a path to permanent residence for those Afghan evacuees who have risked their lives in support of U.S. military efforts. It is the least we can do to honor the sacrifices our Afghan allies have made for the benefit of American democracy.”

Conclusion

These recommendations are endorsed by this blogger, who is a retired lawyer who did not specialize in immigration law, but who in the mid-1980s learned certain aspects of immigration and asylum law and then served as a pro bono lawyer for asylum seekers from El Salvador and other countries.[3]

This endorsement is also buttressed by my current service on the Refugee Co-Sponsorship Team at Minneapolis’ Westminster Presbyterian Church, which is now co-sponsoring an Afghan family with the assistance of the Minnesota Council of Churches. [4]

===============================

[1]  Immense Problems Hampering U.S. Efforts To Resettle Afghans, dwkcommentaries.com (Oct. 22, 2021).

[2] Medeiros, We’re still failing Afghan allies. Why no outrage?, StarTribune (Nov. 2, 2021); John t. Medeiros [Biography];  American Immigration Lawyers Association, Minnesota/Dakotas Chapter.

[3]  Becoming a Pro Bono Asylum Lawyer, dwkcommentareis.com (May 24, 2011); My Pilgrimage to El Salvador, April 1989, dwkcommentaries.com (May 25,  2011); Teaching the International Human Rights Course, dwkcommentaries.com (July 1, 2011).

[4]  Schulze, Campbell & Krohnke, Our Sojourners Have Arrived, Westminster News, p.7  (Nov. 2021).