Cuba condemns attack in New Orleans
Against terrorism in all its manifestations
Cuban Minister of Foreign Relations Bruno Rodríguez condemned the terrorist attack in the French Quarter of New Orleans in the early morning hours of January 1. The highest representative of Cuban diplomacy posted on January 2 on his X social media account: “We condemn the terrorist attack in the US city of New Orleans. Cuba, a country that has been a victim of terrorism, reiterates its commitment to the struggle against that scourge and its call on the international community to act strongly against those who promote and finance those actions.”
Although Cuba is being sanctioned by the government of the United States as a supposed sponsor of terrorism, and even though the Cuban Revolution on its road to political power used the strategy of armed struggle, the Revolution under the leadership of Fidel has never engaged in terrorist actions, has been consistently opposed to terrorism in all its manifestations, and has actively participated in international efforts against terrorism.
In its original form, prior to 1967, terrorism involved extrajudicial assassination of high officials of brutal regimes, especially those who had a reputation for harsh brutality. Terrorism in its original form was in a few cases used as a strategy in twentieth century movements against colonial regimes, but the great majority of anti-colonial movements did not use the strategy.
In the Cuban guerrilla struggle of 1957 and 1958, Fidel prohibited the use of terrorism in the original sense. Why? Because terrorism by the rebel movement would have generated a generalized fear of the movement among the people, who could never know if they themselves would be targeted for some association or cooperation with the evildoers, real or imagined; and because such generalized fear would undermine the revolution, which has the task of elevating the consciousness of the people and explaining to them that the program proposed by the revolution is in their interests. The revolution needs the backing of the people, which cannot be attained through terrorism.
Influenced by Fidel’s teachings, I recently wrote a commentary condemning the murder of the CEO of UnitedHealthcare, which is an example of terrorism in the original sense (“No to revolutionary terrorism! The murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson must be loudly condemned,” December 13, 2024). The commentary was in part a reaction to a social media tendency toward support for the alleged assassin, driven by anger with medical insurance companies delaying and denying claims. Since I posted that commentary, I have seen that U.S. Congresswoman Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, widely known as AOC, has posted that the people who celebrated or implicitly condoned the murder were reacting to the violence of the health insurance system. This may be true, but authentic leaders teach the people the methods, strategies, and individual comportment that will accomplish necessary long-lasting social change.
§
Cuba is against terrorism in all its manifestations
Terrorism in its post-1967 sense may be defined as the deliberate, indiscriminate killing of civilians for political, religious, or ideological motives. It has become, as all the world knows, a scourge in our times, again tragically illustrated in New Orleans on January 1.
The Cuban Revolution since its taking of political power has been consistently opposed to terrorism in the post-1967 sense. Why? Because, as Bruno Rodriguez alludes in his X post, Cuba has been the victim, since the triumph of the Revolution, of numerous terrorist actions carried out by the Miami-based Cuban counterrevolution, with the support of the government of the United States.
The Cuban counterrevolution was formed by those political actors and economic sectors whose interests were adversely affected by the transformations of the neocolonial order carried out by the Cuban Revolutionary Government in the period 1959-1962, and/or individuals who were influenced by the anti-communist ideologies of the neocolonial world-system. The Cuban scholar Jesus Arboleya describes the principal social groups that formed the counterrevolution during the first stage of the Revolution in political power. First, Cubans that were part of the Batista dictatorship, especially those who had been involved in abusive conduct, such as soldiers who had engaged in torture or rape, or politicians involved in corruption on a large scale, for whom reconciliation with the Revolution was not possible. Secondly, the national bourgeoisie, a figurehead bourgeoisie subordinated to U.S. interests, was unable to reconstitute itself as an independent national bourgeoisie contributing to the new project of autonomous economic development. Thirdly, middle- and upper-middle class individuals under the influence of anti-communist ideology. And fourthly, politicians connected to the Auténticos, the political party that had been in power from 1944 to 1952, who now found themselves without popular support or legitimacy.1
These four sectors with economic, political, and ideological motives of opposition to the Cuban Revolution emigrated in large numbers: 62,000 in 1960; 67,000 in 1961; and 66,000 in 1962. Arboleya notes that the Cuban counterrevolution, weakened by its emigration and by its lack of popular support in Cuba, had to accept U.S. sponsorship and support, which gave it an anti-nationalist character, thereby further discrediting itself in the eyes of the Cuban people. Because of its extreme political weakness, the Miami-based Cuban counterrevolution turned to terrorist action as a form of opposition. As Arboleya writes, “The counterrevolutionaries had to organize themselves with the acceptance of U.S. tutelage, which came historically conditioned, and which was the only form in which they could attain the cohesion and the potential that they did not possess by themselves. The lack of popular support led them to adopt terrorism as a fundamental method of struggle.”2
For the United States, the Cuban Revolution, as the first triumphant anti-neocolonial revolution in history, was a dangerous example with serious international repercussions. For this reason, the U.S. policy toward Cuba has been sustained for successive U.S. administrations, the fundamental ingredients of which have been “economic strangulation, diplomatic isolation, political discrediting, internal destabilization, and the promotion of terrorist activities, with the intention of creating a climate that would justify U.S. military intervention,”3 conducted with the support of the Cuban counterrevolution based in Miami.
Although there has been continuity in U.S. policy since the triumph of the Cuban Revolution, the policy has evolved through different stages, in which there have been five important moments. First, in the early 1960s, during the Kennedy Administration, support for the terrorist activities of the Miami-based counterrevolution was a centerpiece of U.S. policy. Disgracefully, the terrorist actions included the targeting of elementary school teachers who had volunteered to serve in remote mountainous regions of the country. The policy was formulated and carried out principally by the CIA, which did not fully inform President Kennedy of the particulars. For his part, Kennedy lost faith in the CIA over Cuba, and he had initiated communication with Fidel through intermediaries, which was cut short by his assassination. Secondly, in the late 1970s, the Cuban counterrevolution experienced a degree of marginalization from U.S. policy during the administration of Jimmy Carter, who took steps toward rapprochement with the Cuban government, seeking the eventual normalization of relations. These steps were halted during the Reagan Administration, during which the influence of the Miami-based Cuban counterrevolution in the U.S. government was renewed. Thirdly, in the 1990s, during the Clinton Administration, and in the aftermath of the collapse of the Soviet-led Eastern European socialist bloc, terrorist activities against Cuba by the Miami-based Cuban counterrevolution resumed amidst renewed counterrevolutionary hopes for the fall of the Cuban Revolutionary Government. In contrast to the 1960s, U.S. government support for the terrorist activities was indirect, and the number of terrorist actions was not as great, but still a regular occurrence, prompting Cuban intelligence to send spies to Miami to inform the Cuban government of their ongoing plans. Fourthly, the Obama loosening of the blockade from 2014 to 2016 sought to bring down the Cuban Revolution by creating an internal opposition rooted in a growing middle class. The Obama approach to the normalization of relations did not involve respect for the sovereignty of Cuba. Fifth, the Trump administration ended the Obama initiative, intensifying the blockade of Cuba through new measures and economic sanctions. The policies of the Trump administration, continued by Biden, have economic and ideological dimensions, with serious economic repercussions for Cuba, but do not involve open state support for terrorist actions.
In 2000, a report prepared by Cuban Colonel José Pérez Fernández, “An Expert Report on Forty Years of Aggression of the United States Against Cuba,” reviewed dozens of acts of sabotage and terrorism against Cuba in the 1960s and 1990s. The Report was submitted in the judicial process for the Demand of the People of Cuba against the United States for economic damages, before the Provincial Court of the City of Havana.4
The most infamous act of terrorism against Cuba was a bomb explosion on a flight of Cubana Aviation shortly after take-off from Barbados on October 6, 1976, which killed seventy-three persons, including fifty-seven Cubans. Orlando Busch was detained for the crime, and he spent eleven years in prison, until a campaign by two U.S representatives of Cuban origin led to his release, enabling him to live with tranquility in Miami.5
The history of U.S. support for terrorist activities against Cuba, which have caused extensive human and material damage, is the reason that Cuba is opposed not only to terrorism against the United States and the American people, but also is opposed to terrorism in all its manifestation, regardless of the nation, ethnic group, people, or movement against which it is directed. The Cuban position is that the indiscriminate killing of civilians for political, religious, or ideological motives is always ethically unjustifiable, regardless of whom is targeted. There is no morally legitimate distinction between good terrorism and bad terrorism, distinguished on the basis of an ideologically driven evaluation of the group under attack.
I stand with Cuba against terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, whether it be terrorist actions against the people of New York or New Orleans, or against the people of Cuba; and whether it be carried out in a political system of representative democracy, like that of the United States, or carried out in a people’s democracy, like that of Cuba. Representative democracies have their structural defects, due to the disproportionate voice and power of the corporate elite and wealthy individuals. Nevertheless, during the last half century, countries like Chile, Nicaragua, Venezuela, Bolivia, and Ecuador have shown that a redistribution of power toward the people and fundamental social change can be attained without resorting to terrorism or any other form of violence. In dictatorships in which armed struggle is deemed necessary, the struggle can triumph without recourse to terrorism and with strict adherence to internationally accepted rules of engagement and war, as the Cuban Revolution demonstrated.
All movements for social change, whether they be of the ideological Left or the ideological Right, ought to clearly proclaim: We stand with Cuba against terrorism in all its manifestations.
A free subscription option is available, with capacity to read, send, and share all posts. A paid subscription ($5 per month or $40 per year) enables you to make comments and to support the costs of the column; paid subscribers also receive a free PDF copy of my book on Cuba and the world-system. Ten percent of income generated through subscriptions to the column is donated to the Cuban Society for Philosophical Investigations.
Deepen your understanding of people’s democracy, a post-bourgeois form of democracy necessary for our times:
People’s Democracy in Cuba: A vanguard political-economic system
Jesús Arboleya, La Contrarrevolución Cubana (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales, 1997).
Jesús Arboleya, El Otro Terrorismo: Medio siglo de política de los Estados Unidos hacia Cuba (La Habana: Editorial de Ciencias Sociales. 2009), Pp. 24-25.
Jesús Arboleya, La Contrarrevolución Cubana, P. 24.
José Ramón Fernández and José Pérez Fernández, La Guerra de EEUU contra Cuba (Melbourne: Ocean Press, 2001), Pp. 9-35.
Ibid, Pp. 32-33.