• All governments lie, but disaster lies in wait for countries whose officials smoke the same hashish they give out.

  • I.F. Stone

zaterdag 28 februari 2015

Henk Hofland en de Massa 11


Henk Hofland tijdens de Eerste Koude Oorlog.


President Poetin wil geen compromis, zoals de praktijk van deze oorlog aantoont, en het is dus noodzaak voor het Westen om grenzen aan de Russische expansie te stellen. We naderen het stadium waarin van Poetin alles te verwachten valt,

aldus columnist Henk Hofland in De Groene Amsterdammer van 11 februari 2015. Deze gevaarlijk tendentieuze voorstelling van zaken, zo typerend voor de zelfbenoemde 'politiek-literaire elite' in de polder, staat in schril contrast met die van de ware intelligentsia in grote cultuurlanden. Geen enkele kritische Angelsaksische deskundige zal ooit hetzelfde schrijven dat de, in Nederland zo bewonderde, nestor van de polderpers op 19 februari 2014 in De Groene Amsterdammer beweerde:

Dankzij een uiteindelijk beheerste buitenlandse politiek hebben de machtsblokken met het kernwapen leren leven. Het heeft geen actuele invloed meer, behalve in de verhouding tussen Israël en Iran en ook daar raakt het sinds het aantreden van de nieuwe president Hassan Rohani geleidelijk op de achtergrond. Op 23 maart begint in Den Haag de tweedaagse nucleaire topconferentie waaraan 58 wereldleiders en zo’n vijfduizend delegatieleden deel­nemen. Geen halve maatregelen, maar een actueel gevaar valt daar niet te bedwingen.

Januari 2015, nog geen jaar later, waarschuwden goed geïnformeerde bronnen in zowel Rusland als de VS ervoor dat de escalatie in vijandigheden tussen de twee grootste nucleaire mogendheden kan uitlopen op een nucleaire confrontatie, waardoor wel degelijk 'een actueel gevaar' is ontstaan. Bovendien getuigt ook Hoflands pedante bewering dat 'de machtsblokken met het kernwapen' hebben 'leren leven,' van een schrikbarend gebrek aan kennis en verbeeldingskracht. Ik citeer iemand die de werkelijkheid uit directe ervaring kent, namelijk de voormalige Amerikaanse minister van Defensie, Robert McNamara, die in zowel in zijn boek In Retrospect: The Tragedy and Lessons of Vietnam (1996) als in de bekroonde documentaire The Fog of War: Eleven Lessons from the Life of Robert S. McNamara. (2003) met betrekking tot een nucleair armageddon op het volgende wees:

I want to say, and this is very important: at the end we lucked out. It was
luck that prevented nuclear war. We came that close to nuclear war at the 
end. Rational individuals: Kennedy was rational; Khrushchev was rational; 
Castro was rational. Rational individuals came that close to total
 destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today.

Over de Amerikaanse kernbom op Hiroshima en Nagasaki verklaarde Mcnamara:

Why was it necessary to drop the nuclear bomb if LeMay was burning 
up Japan? And he went on from Tokyo to firebomb other cities. 58% of 
Yokohama. Yokohama is roughly the size of Cleveland. 58% of 
Cleveland destroyed. Tokyo is roughly the size of New York. 51% percent of
 New York destroyed. 99% of the equivalent of Chattanooga, which was 
Toyama. 40% of the equivalent of Los Angeles, which was Nagoya. This was
all done before the dropping of the nuclear bomb, which by the way was
dropped by LeMay's command. Proportionality should be a guideline in 
war. Killing 50% to 90% of the people of 67 Japanese cities and then bombing them with two nuclear bombs is not proportional, in the minds of some people, to the objectives we were trying to achieve.

LeMay said, 'If we'd lost the war, we'd all have been prosecuted as war 
criminals.' And I think he's right. He, and I'd say I, were behaving as 
war criminals. LeMay recognized that what he was doing would be thought 
immoral if his side had lost. But what makes it immoral if you lose and not
immoral if you win?

Terugkijkend op zijn ministerschap van 1961 tot 1968, het hoogtepunt van de Koude Oorlog en de Vietnam-Oorlog, verklaarde Mcnamara:

We all make mistakes. We know we make mistakes. I don't know any military commander, who is honest, who would say he has not made a mistake. There's a wonderful phrase: 'the fog of war.' What 'the fog of war' means is: war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.

The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations. Is it right and proper that today there are 7500 offensive strategic nuclear warheads, of which 2500 are on a 15 minute alert to be launched at the decision of one human being?

Het is dus 'pure mazzel' geweest dat er een nucleaire oorlog niet is uitgebroken. Het gevaar blijft groot, vooral ook omdat 'war is so complex it's beyond the ability of the human mind to comprehend all the variables. Our judgment, our understanding, are not adequate. And we kill people unnecessarily.' Maar humanitaire overwegingen spelen geen doorslaggevende rol voor de hoogbejaarde voormalige 'huzaar eerste klas,' Henk Hofland, die in 1949 werd 'gedetacheerd bij de Leger Film- en Fotodienst,' en 'speelfilms af[draaide] op de troepenschepen die de militairen van en naar Batavia verscheepten.' Als kneus heeft hij nooit gevechtshandelingen van nabij meegemaakt, en juist daarom kan hij moeiteloos beweren dat 'het Westen grenzen aan de Russische expansie,' moet stellen, desnoods met grootscheeps geweld. Met het in zijn ogen 'vredestichtende Westen,' bedoelt de opinieheld natuurlijk de NAVO, die overal wordt ingezet om met massaal geweld de belangen van de economische elite te handhaven of uit te breiden, geheel in lijn met president Theodore Roosevelt's en de Amerikaanse staalmagnaat Andrew Carnegie's devies 'Speak softly and carry a big stick.' Of zoals in 1907 de latere president Woodrow Wilson het formuleerde:

Since trade ignores national boundaries and the manufacturer insists on having the world as a market, the flag of his nation must follow him, and the doors of the nations which are closed must be battered down… Concessions obtained by financiers must be safeguarded by ministers of state, even if the sovereignty of unwilling nations be outraged in the process. Colonies must be obtained or planted, in order that no useful corner of the world may be overlooked or left unused.

De vraag is nu: hoe is het te verklaren dat een insider als McNamara op zijn 85ste jaar opmerkte:

I'm at age where I can look back and derive some conclusions about my actions. My rule has been try to learn, try to understand what happened. Develop the lessons and pass them on,

terwijl de outsider Henk Hofland op zijn 87ste nog steeds niet geleerd heeft dat zijn logica op niets concreets is gebaseerd, behalve dan dat de nucleaire holocaust nog niet heeft plaatsgevonden, met andere woorden: dat de koorddanser nog niet naar beneden is gestort? De enige serieuze verklaring is dat een mainstream-journalist als Hofland betaald wordt om de gesanctioneerde officieële versie van de werkelijkheid te verspreiden. Zou hij het kapitalisme en de NAVO-doctrine van de Mutual Assured Destruction fundamenteel ter discussie hebben gesteld dan was hij nooit door zijn mainstream-collega's uitgeroepen tot 'de beste Nederlandse journalist van de twintigste eeuw.' Niet alleen zijn status, maar ook zijn inkomen zou dan een forse deuk hebben opgelopen, want dit onderwerp is uiterst controversieel en dus taboe voor de commerciële pers. Daarom blijft de grijsaard de technologische waanzin verspreiden die de Amerikaanse socioloog C. Wright Mills zo treffend betitelde met de term 'rationality without reason.' Als men maar dwaas genoeg is, schopt de mens het in elk systeem heel erg ver. Tegelijkertijd worden dissidenten, in Rusland zowel als in het 'vrije Westen' gemarginaliseerd, en wel omdat, zoals de historicus Huizinga uiteenzette 

elke organisatie tot zekere perfectie gekomen en in gang gehouden door haar eigen mechanisme de neiging [heeft], haar doel in haar eigen bestaan en functie te verplaatsen…

Organisatie betekent macht, en macht in zichzelf, niet geheiligd door een volwaardig doel, is een kwaad. Zij kan slechts heilzaam worden, indien zij gedragen wordt door persoonlijke zedelijke verantwoordelijkheid, en haar doel heeft buiten en boven de machtswil en het belang der dragers van die macht. Hierbij maakt het geen onderscheid, of het de macht van één of van miljoenen is.

Op grond van dit besef verklaarde Robert McNamara:

The major lesson of the Cuban missile crisis is this: the indefinite combination of human fallibility and nuclear weapons will destroy nations. Is it right and proper that today there are 7500 offensive strategic nuclear warheads, of which 2500 are on a 15 minute alert to be launched at the decision of one human being?

De feiten spreken voor zich, behalve dan voor een ideologische verblinde als Henk Hofland. Het feit dat 'one human being,' zonder last of ruggespraak kan beslissen of de mensheid al dan niet moet worden uitgeroeid, neemt hij voor kennisgeving aan. Als overtuigde propagandist van de 'Atlantische eenheid,' die vandaag de dag door 'Poetin' (daar is hij weer) wordt getroffen, steunt hij, met zijn ene been al in het graf, de waanzin van een nucleaire holocaust. Ook al waarschuwt een insider als McNamara dat 'Rational individuals came that close to total destruction of their societies. And that danger exists today,' dan nog meent Hofland dat hij precies het tegenovergestelde kan beweren. En zijn dwaasheid blijft in Nederland onweersproken. Dit maakt de rol van de hedendaagse commerciële massamedia zo bedreigend. Hoe misdadig de bewering van Hofland in feite is, wordt duidelijk wanneer u het volgende leest: 

UNITED NATIONS -- Delivering a clarion call for nuclear disarmament, former US Secretary of Defense Robert S. McNamara was the focal point of back-to-back sessions at the United Nations on October 17, 2001, including a high level luncheon for key ambassadors and a public presentation before an overflow crowd at the Dag Hammarskjöld Library Auditorium…

The current United States and NATO nuclear policy is 'absurdly dangerous' Mr. McNamara told some forty ambassadors, dignitaries and representatives from more than twenty countries at the luncheon. The event was hosted by the San Francisco-based Global Security Institute and co-sponsored by the UN Department of Disarmament Affairs, and began with remarks by Under-Secretary-General for Disarmament Affairs Jayantha Dhanapala.

Although Mr. McNamara praised recent pledges by President Bush to reduce the U.S. nuclear arsenal from its current 7,500 warheads, he said that even an exchange between arsenals reduced to 1,500 warheads each would be catastrophic. Furthermore, he said, the combination of launch-on-warning policy and human error make an inadvertent nuclear war a very real possibility as long as the weapons exist in their current deployment.

Mr. McNamara described the planned response of the United States government in the case of a detected launch of nuclear weapons against the United States. First, he said, the commander of the nuclear forces (who must always be 'within three rings of a telephone') would be informed. He or she must first decide whether the warning was reliable.

'Russia has received many unreliable warnings. We [the United States] receive many unreliable warnings,' Mr. McNamara said. 'You've got to decide whether to launch or not to launch' within only a few minutes.

The commander then makes a recommendation to the president, Mr. McNamara said. 'And then the president is allowed maybe five minutes to think what the hell to do and whom to consult with. The American people? No way. The Congress? No way. The Cabinet? No way. Maybe possibly the Secretary of Defense and the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and then he transfers his decision with the codes from that football [the President's brief case containing nuclear weapon launch codes] and they're launched.'

Mr. McNamara blasted this situation and the public ignorance that he believes allows it to continue. 'Now that's what we've gone through for 40 years. And that's where we are today. I think it is absolutely insane and I don't believe any of your people or any of our people who have good judgment would tolerate it if they knew it. They don't know it.'

A longtime advocate of the total elimination of nuclear weapons through verifiable treaty regimes, Mr. McNamara criticized U.S. plans for a ballistic missile defense system on two fronts. First, he said that deployment of such a system would threaten 'strategic stability' by undermining deterrence, a doctrine that Mr. McNamara was instrumental in developing during his tenure as Secretary of Defense.

'Strategic stability does not require nuclear parity,' Mr. McNamara said. 'At the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis, October '62, we had 5,500 strategic offensive warheads. We believed the Soviets had 350.' However, 'stability existed, because we did not believe we could launch our 5,500 against their 350 and destroy so many of them that so few would be left that they couldn't inflict unacceptable damage. This is absolutely fundamental to security.'

Secondly, Mr. McNamara said, deployment of an elaborate ballistic missile defense system would be a clear indication of 'our determination to maintain large offensive nuclear forces indefinitely.'

Because this intention is a 'direct violation' of Article VI of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds the five declared nuclear weapons states to eventual elimination of nuclear weapons, it will further undermine the nonproliferation regime, possibly leading to its collapse.

'And if it collapses, we're not going to then have three aircraft bombs killing 7,000 people,' Mr. McNamara said, referring to the September 11 attacks on the World Trade Center and Pentagon. 'We're going to have three nuclear bombs killing 7 million people. Very, very quickly after the collapse of the nonproliferation regime, there would be proliferation,' the result of a 'latent, pent-up demand for nuclear weapons in many, many parts of the world.'
Therefore, Mr. McNamara called for the United States to work with other nations toward nuclear disarmament.

Pakistani Ambassador Shamshad Ahmad… cited Albert Einstein's comment that 'the fourth world war will be fought with rocks and stones.'

'This is a very meaningful message: that man has an innate tendency to fight and to use whatever he can use as a weapon,' Ambassador Ahmad said. 'So the best and the ideal solution is to root out the causes of conflict.'

However, Ambassador Ahmad said, the United Nations is 'faring no better' than Woodrow Wilson's League of Nations at this task.
Mr. McNamara concurred with Ambassador Ahmad's assessment and called for a sweeping change of the United Nation's structure to make it 'an effective power in the world.'

The American people 'are not yet ready to cede sovereignty as they see it to the UN,' Mr. McNamara said. Nevertheless, 'we're going to have to move in that way, and it requires all of us to help do it.'

Terwijl de voltallige polderpers de hetze tegen 'Poetin' fanatiek voortzet, en Hofland met zijn Koude Oorlogsretoriek furore maakt, blijft de vooraanstaande Amerikaanse onderzoeksjournalist Robert Parry daarentegen uiterst waakzaam, en waarschuwde hij zijn lezers:

A year after a U.S.-backed coup ousted Ukraine’s elected president, the new powers in Kiev are itching for a 'full-scale war' with Russia — and want the West’s backing even if it could provoke a nuclear conflict. 

Onder de kop 'Ready for Nuclear War over Ukraine?' schreef hij op 23 februari 2015:

A senior Ukrainian official is urging the West to risk a nuclear conflagration in support of a 'full-scale war' with Russia that he says authorities in Kiev are now seeking, another sign of the extremism that pervades the year-old, U.S.-backed regime in Kiev.

In a recent interview with Canada’s CBC Radio, Ukraine’s Deputy Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said, 'Everybody is afraid of fighting with a nuclear state. We are not anymore, in Ukraine — we’ve lost so many people of ours, we’ve lost so much of our territory.'

Prystaiko added, 'However dangerous it sounds, we have to stop [Russian President Vladimir Putin] somehow. For the sake of the Russian nation as well, not just for the Ukrainians and Europe.' The deputy foreign minister announced that Kiev is preparing for “full-scale war” against Russia and wants the West to supply lethal weapons and training so the fight can be taken to Russia.

'What we expect from the world is that the world will stiffen up in the spine a little,' Prystaiko said.

Yet, what is perhaps most remarkable about Prystaiko’s 'Dr. Strangelove' moment is that it produced almost no reaction in the West. You have a senior Ukrainian official saying that the world should risk nuclear war over a civil conflict in Ukraine between its west, which favors closer ties to Europe, and its east, which wants to maintain its historic relationship with Russia.

Why should such a pedestrian dispute justify the possibility of vaporizing millions of human beings and conceivably ending life on the planet? Yet, instead of working out a plan for a federalized structure in Ukraine or even allowing people in the east to vote on whether they want to remain under the control of the Kiev regime, the world is supposed to risk nuclear annihilation.

But therein lies one of the under-reported stories of the Ukraine crisis: There is a madness to the Kiev regime that the West doesn’t want to recognize because to do so would upend the dominant narrative of 'our' good guys vs. Russia’s bad guys. If we begin to notice that the right-wing regime in Kiev is crazy and brutal, we might also start questioning the 'Russian aggression' mantra.

According to the Western 'group think,' the post-coup Ukrainian government 'shares our values' by favoring democracy and modernity, while the rebellious ethnic Russians in eastern Ukraine are 'Moscow’s minions' representing dark forces of backwardness and violence, personified by Russia’s 'irrational' President Putin. In this view, the conflict is a clash between the forces of good and evil where there is no space for compromise.

Yet, there is a craziness to this 'group think' that is highlighted by Prystaiko’s comments. Not only does the Kiev regime display a cavalier attitude about dragging the world into a nuclear catastrophe but it also has deployed armed neo-Nazis and other right-wing extremists to wage a dirty war in the east that has involved torture and death-squad activities.

Volgende keer meer over de onbegrensde, levensgevaarlijke dwaasheden van H.J.A. Hofland.


Henk Hofland tijdens de Tweede Koude Oorlog, een halve eeuw na de bovenste foto, uiterlijk veranderd, maar innerlijk nog steeds dezelfde Koude Oorlogspropagandist. 

Jarenlang was Hofland bevriend met journalist Willem Oltmans. Aan die vriendschap kwam in 1972 een abrupt einde. Tijdens een feestje bij Oltmans, waren naast Hofland en anderen ook Sovjet-diplomaten aanwezig. De eveneens aanwezige Telegraaf-journalist Peter Zonneveld schoot foto's met een verborgen camera en bracht daarmee, gelet op de gespannen Oost-West verhoudingen van destijds, Oltmans' journalistieke integriteit in diskrediet. Volgens Oltmans zaten de inlichtingendiensten er achter en had Hofland een aandeel in dat complot. De door De Telegraaf gepubliceerde foto's (waarvoor de krant overigens werd veroordeeld op grond van de Wet op de Privé-sfeer) deden veel stof opwaaien en hadden grote gevolgen voor Hofland als hoofdredacteur; in die functie had hij het al moeilijk met een progressieve redactie contra een lezerspubliek dat over het algemeen conservatief was. De affaire-Zonneveld betekende het einde van zijn redacteurschap. Hij mocht zich gaan bezighouden met het berichten over televisie, maar bedankte daarvoor.




Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag!

As if on cue, the murder yesterday of Boris Nemtsov, a Washington-funded Russian “opposition politician” with a tiny following, has become a major news item for the American presstitute media.  The presstitutes have responded as if orchestrated by a conductor with insinuations of Putin’s responsibility and the death of democracy in Russia.

Stephen Lendman who watches these matters closely notes that clearly Nemtsov is worth more to Washington dead than alive.



Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag! — Stephen Lendman

SATURDAY, FEBRUARY 28, 2015

Nemtsov Murder: Anti-Putin False Flag!

by Stephen Lendman

Overnight Friday, opposition politician/Putin antagonist Boris Nemtsov was shot and killed in central Moscow. 

Tass said he was “shot dead (by) four shots from a handgun from a car passing by him…”
He was RPR-Parnas party co-chair, a Yaroslavi Oblast regional parliament member, and Solidarnost co-founder/co-chair – modeled after CIA-financed anti-communist Lech Walesa’s Polish Solidarnosc.
In the 1990s, he held various government posts – including first deputy prime minister and deputy prime minister under Boris Yeltsin. 
He served in Russia’s lower house State Duma and upper house Federation Council. He ignored clear US responsibility for Ukrainian crisis conditions. He lied calling Donbass “Vladimir Putin’s war.”
Before Washington’s coup, he said “(w)e support Ukraine’s course toward European integration…By supporting Ukraine, we support ourselves.”
Along with Aleksey Navalny, Garry Kasparov, Vladimir Ryzhkov, and other Putin opponents, he had close Western ties.
He got State Department funding through the National Endowment for Democracy (NED). It wages war on democracy worldwide. 
It advances US interests. Its board of directors includes a rogue’s gallery of neocon extremists.
In 2009, Nemtsov and Kasparov met personally with Obama. They discussed anti-Putin tactics – regime change by any other name.
Nemtsov’s killing was strategically timed – ahead of Sunday’s Vesna (Russian Spring anti-government) opposition march. 
I’ll now be a Nemtsov memorial rally – turning an anti-Putin/pro-Western opportunist/convenient stooge into an unjustifiable martyr. 
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said “Putin has stressed that this brutal murder has all (the) signs of a contract murder and is extremely provocative.”
“The president has expressed his deep condolences to the family of tragically deceased Nemtsov.”
Serial-killer/unindicted war criminal Obama “condemn(ed) (his) brutal murder.” 
He ludicrously called him “a tireless advocate for his country, seeking for his fellow Russian citizens the rights to which all people are entitled.”  
“I admired Nemtsov’s courageous dedication to the struggle against corruption in Russia and appreciated his willingness to share his candid views with me when we met in Moscow in 2009.”
“(T)he Russian people…have lost one of the most dedicated and eloquent defenders of their rights.”
John Kerry made similar duplicitous comments. Mikhail Gorbachev called his killing “an attempt to complicate the situation in the country, even to destabilize it by ratcheting up tensions between the government and the opposition.”
Nemtsov was a Western financed self-serving opportunist. His killing has all the earmarks of a US-staged false flag. Cui bono remains most important.
Clearly Putin had nothing to gain. Rogue US elements have lots to benefit from trying to destabilize Russia.
If Putin wanted Nemtsov dead, it’s inconceivable he’d order a Mafia-style contract killing. An “unfortunate” plane or car crash would have been more likely.
Perhaps cleverly poisoning him the way Obama murdered Chavez and Sharon killed Arafat.
Gunning him down in central Moscow automatically rules out Kremlin involvement. 
His demise has all the earmarks of a CIA-staged false flag. Expect no evidence whatever surfacing suggesting Putin’s involvement.
Nemtsov’s martyrdom is much more valuable to Washington than using him alive as an impotent opposition figure.
Despite challenging economic conditions, Putin’s approval rating exceeds 85%. Nemtsov’s party has less than 5%. He was no popular favorite. Most Russians disliked him.
Expect his hyped martyrdom to be fully exploited in the West. Does Washington plan more political assassinations to heighten the Nemtsov effect?
Expect Sunday’s march to be nothing more than another US failed attempt to enlist anti-Putin support.
Russians aren’t stupid. They know how Washington operates. How it vilifies their government. How neocon lunatics in charge are capable of anything.
They know Washington bears full responsibility for Ukrainian crisis conditions. How Putin goes all-out trying to resolve them diplomatically.
Obama wants war, not peace. He wants destabilizing regime change in Russia – perhaps by nuclear war if other methods fail.
Killing Nemtsov changes nothing. Expect Western anti-Putin propaganda to fall flat after a few days of suggesting his involvement.
The New York Times practically accused him of murder calling Nemtsov’s killing “the highest-profile assassination in Russia during (his) tenure.”
His death occurred “just days before he was to lead (an anti-Putin) rally to protest the war in Ukraine.”
The Times absurdly claimed “doors are now closing on the vision of a pluralistic political system of the type (Nemtsov) said he wanted for Russia.”
It quoted discredited (on corruption charges) Putin opposition figure Gennady Gudkov saying “(t)hey have started to kill ‘enemies of the people.’ Mr. Nemtsov is dead. Who is next?”
The Times called him a “dashing, handsome young politician..often touted as an heir apparent to (Boris) Yeltsin.”
Neocon Washington Post editors called his murder “another dark sign for Russia.”
They flat-out lied saying he “was a courageous Russian politician who never gave up on the dream that the country could make the transition from dictatorship to liberal democracy.”
They tried turning a nobody into a political icon. Ludicrously claiming he “be(came) one of the most enduring political figures of the post-Soviet era.”
Disgracefully saying “he was by no means the first Putin opponent to be murdered in brazen fashion.” Practically accusing Putin of ordering his killing.
Claiming he’s “unwilling to tolerate opposition of any kind.” Ignoring his overwhelming popularity. His opposition does a good job of rendering itself irrelevant.
Neocon Wall Street Journal editors proved true to form. They outrageously said “(i)n the gangster state that is Vladimir Putin’s Russia, we may never learn who shot Boris Nemtsov in Moscow late Friday night.”
They absurdly claimed “he might have steered Russia toward a decent future had he been given a chance.”
“Instead, he was fated to become a courageous voice for democracy and human rights who risked his life to alert an indifferent West to the dangers of doing business with the man in the Kremlin.”
Journal and like-minded editorials and commentaries repeated one Big Lie after another. Irresponsible Putin bashing substitutes for honest reporting and analysis.
Nemtsov’s killing is Washington’s latest attempt to destabilize Russia. It’s part of its longstanding regime change strategy.
It bears repeating. Russians are too smart to fall for thinly veiled US schemes. 
Their overwhelming support for Putin shows flat rejection of what Washington neocons have in mind for their country. 
Stephen Lendman lives in Chicago. He can be reached at lendmanstephen@sbcglobal.net.
His new book as editor and contributor is titled “Flashpoint in Ukraine: US Drive for Hegemony Risks WW III.”
Visit his blog site at sjlendman.blogspot.com. 
Listen to cutting-edge discussions with distinguished guests on the Progressive Radio News Hour on the Progressive Radio Network.
It airs three times weekly: live on Sundays at 1PM Central time plus two prerecorded archived programs. 

Meer over de NED, de Amerikaanse organisatie die de zogeheten 'democratische oppostie' financiert in landen die kritisch tegenover Washington staan.

Trojan Horse:

The National Endowment for Democracy

excerpted from the book

Rogue State

A Guide to the World's Only Superpower

by William Blum

Common Courage Press, 2000

 

How many Americans could identify the National Endowment for Democracy? An organization which often does exactly the opposite of what its name implies. The NED was set up in the early 1980s under President Reagan in the wake of all the negative revelations about the CIA in the second half of the 1970s. The latter was a remarkable period. Spurred by Watergate-the Church Committee of the Senate, the Pike Committee of the House and the Rockefeller Commission, created by the president, were all busy investigating the CIA. Seemingly every other day there was a new headline about the discovery of some awful thing, even criminal conduct, the CIA had been mixed up in for years. The Agency was getting an exceedingly bad name, and it was causing the powers-that-be much embarrassment.

Something had to be done. What was done was not to stop doing these awful things. Of course not. What was done was to shift many of these awful things to a new organization, with a nice sounding name-the National Endowment for Democracy. The idea was that the NED would do somewhat overtly what the CIA had been doing covertly for decades, and thus, hopefully, eliminate the stigma associated with CIA covert activities.

It was a masterpiece. Of politics, of public relations and of cynicism. Thus it was that in 1983, the National Endowment for Democracy was set up to "support democratic institutions throughout the world through private, nongovernmental efforts". Notice the "nongovernmental"-part of the image, part of the myth. In actuality, virtually every penny of its funding comes from the federal government, as is clearly indicated in the financial statement in each issue of its annual report. NED likes to refer to itself as an NGO (non-governmental organization) because this helps to maintain a certain credibility abroad that an official US government agency might not have. But NGO is the wrong category. NED is a GO.

Allen Weinstein, who helped draft the legislation establishing NED, was quite candid when he said in 1991: "A lot of what we do today was done covertly 25 years ago by the CIA." In effect, the CIA has been laundering money through NED.

The Endowment has four principal initial recipients of funds: the International Republican Institute; the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs; an affiliate of the AFL-CIO (such as the American Center for International Labor Solidarity); and an affiliate of the Chamber of Commerce (such as the Center for International Private Enterprise). These institutions then disburse funds to other institutions in the US and all over the world, which then often disburse funds to yet other organizations.

In a multitude of ways, NED meddles in the internal affairs of foreign countries by supplying funds, technical know-how, training, educational materials, computers, fax machines, copiers, automobiles and so on, to selected political groups, civic organizations, labor unions, dissident movements, student groups, book publishers, newspapers, other media, etc. NED programs generally impart the basic philosophy that working people and other citizens are best served under a system of free enterprise, class cooperation, collective bargaining, minimal government intervention in the economy and opposition to socialism in any shape or form. A freemarket economy is equated with democracy, reform and growth, and the merits of foreign investment are emphasized.

From 1994 to 1996, NED awarded 15 grants, totaling more than $2,500,000, to the American Institute for Free Labor Development, an organization used by the CIA for decades to subvert progressive labor unions. AlFLD's work within Third World unions typically involved a considerable educational effort very similar to the basic NED philosophy described above. The description of one of the 1996 NED grants to AIFLD includes as one its objectives: "build union-management cooperation". Like many things that NED says, this sounds innocuous, if not positive, but these in fact are ideological code words meaning "keep the labor agitation down...don't rock the status quo boat". The relationship between NED and AIFLD very well captures the CIA origins of NED.

The Endowment has funded centrist and rightist labor organizations to help them oppose those unions which were too militantly proworker. This has taken place in France, Portugal and Spain amongst many other places. In France, during the 1983-4 period, NED supported a "trade union-like organization for professors and students" to counter "left-wing organizations of professors". To this end it funded a series of seminars and the publication of posters, books and pamphlets such as "Subversion and the Theology of Revolution" and "Neutralism or Liberty". ("Neutralism" here refers to being unaligned in the Cold War.)

NED describes one of its 1997-98 programs thusly: "To identify barriers to private sector development at the local and federal levels in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia and to push for legislative change...[and] to develop strategies for private sector growth." Critics of Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic have been supported by NED grants for years.

In short, NED's programs are in sync with the basic needs and objectives of the New World Order's economic globalization, just as the programs have for years been on the same wavelength as US foreign policy.

Because of a controversy in 1984-when NED funds were used to aid a Panamanian presidential candidate backed by Manuel Noriega and the CIA-Congress enacted a law prohibiting the use of NED funds "to finance the campaigns of candidates for public office." But the ways to circumvent the spirit of such a prohibition are not difficult to come up with; as with American elections, there's "hard money" and there's "soft money".

... NED successfully manipulated elections in Nicaragua in 1990 and Mongolia in 1996 and helped to overthrow democratically elected governments in Bulgaria in 1990 and Albania in 1991 and 1992. In Haiti in the late l990s, NED was busy working on behalf of right wing groups who were united in their opposition to former president Jean-Bertrand Aristide and his progressive ideology. NED has made its weight felt in the electoral-political process in numerous other countries.

NED would have the world believe that it's only teaching the ABCs of democracy and elections to people who don't know them, but in all five countries named above there had already been free and fair elections held. The problem, from NED's point of view, is that the elections had been won by political parties not on NED's favorites list.

The Endowment maintains that it's engaged in "opposition building" and "encouraging pluralism". "We support people who otherwise do not have a voice in their political system," said Louisa Coan, a NED program officer. But NED hasn't provided aid to foster progressive or leftist opposition in Mexico, El Salvador, Guatemala, Nicaragua or Eastern Europe-or, for that matter, in the United States even though these groups are hard pressed for funds and to make themselves heard. Cuban dissident groups and media are heavily supported however.

NED's reports carry on endlessly about "democracy", but at best it's a modest measure of mechanical political democracy they have in mind, not economic democracy; nothing that aims to threaten the powers-that-be or the way-things-are, unless of course it's in a place like Cuba.

The Endowment played an important role in the Iran-Contra affair of the 1980s, funding key components of Oliver North's shadowy "Project Democracy" network, which privatized US foreign policy, waged war, ran arms and drugs and engaged in other equally charming activities. At one point in 1987, a White House spokesman stated that those at NED "run Project Democracy". This was an exaggeration; it would have been more correct to say that NED was the public arm of Project Democracy, while North ran the covert end of things. In any event, the statement caused much less of a stir than if-as in an earlier period-it had been revealed that it was the CIA which was behind such an unscrupulous operation.

NED also mounted a multi-level campaign to fight the leftist insurgency in the Philippines in the mid-1980s, funding a host of private organizations, including unions and the media. This was a replica of a typical CIA operation of pre-NED days.

And between 1990 and 1992, the Endowment donated a quarter-million dollars of taxpayers' money to the Cuban-American National Fund, the ultra-fanatic anti-Castro Miami group. The CANF, in turn, financed Luis Posada Carriles, one of the most prolific and pitiless terrorists of modern times, who was involved in the blowing up of a Cuban airplane in 1976, which killed 73 people. In 1997, he was involved in a series of bomb explosions in Havana hotels.

The NED, like the CIA before it, calls what it does supporting democracy. The governments and movements whom the NED targets call it destabilization.

 

William Blum is the author of "Killing Hope: U.S. Military and CIA Interventions Since World War II" (Common Courage Press, 1995).

www.killinghope.org/

bblum6@aol.com

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/CIA/National%20EndowmentDemo.html

Cuba-United States

The Cuban Revolution, the U.S. Imposed Economic Blockade and US-Cuba Relations

Global Research, February 27, 2015
fidel et Che
The victory of the Cuban revolution over the forces of U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista meant that January 1, 1959 marked the first time in 467 years that Cubans were not subjected to serfdom and exploitation by a foreign power. Spain was the first country to exercise dominion over Cuba beginning in 1510, up until the Spanish-American War of 1898. During this period, Spain engaged in the exploitation of Cuban natural resources and subjected the native population to forced labour. The Spaniards essentially distributed the “land and indigenous labourers” amongst themselves1. Both African slaves, which were originally introduced to the island by the Spanish, and the native population were forced to endure “harsh working conditions suffered under colonists”2.
The Spanish-American War, which culminated with the expulsion of Spain in 1898, did not bring emancipation to the Cubans that had been fighting for their independence. Instead, this victory only substituted one oppressor for another, as the U.S. transformed Cuba into a neo-colony. From that point forward, the U.S exercised imperial power over the island, exploiting its resources, and dictating Cuba’s domestic and foreign policies. During this time, the Cuban economy was highly dependent on the U.S., as “74% of Cuba’s exports were destined for the US, while 73% of its imports came from the US...the all-important Cuban US sugar export market and price were controlled in Washington” (Ritter, 2010, p. 3). In fact, “[b]y the 1950s, the U.S. controlled 80 percent of Cuban utilities, 90 percent of Cuban mines, close to 100 percent of the country’s oil refineries, 90 percent of its cattle ranches, and 40 percent of the sugar industry”3. Havana also became a popular tourist destination where foreigners, particularly Americans, could indulge in gambling and prostitution.
The Revolution enabled Cuba to become independent of U.S. imperial power. One of the first acts of the new government was to nationalize foreign enterprises and utilities in addition to instituting a series of land and agrarian reforms. Washington retaliated by imposing a comprehensive commercial, economic and financial embargo in 1962, which blocked virtually all trade between the two countries and banned U.S. citizens from travelling to Cuba. The U.S. administration regarded the trade embargo as the best mechanism to achieve its objectives, which were aptly summarized by Lester D. Mallory, former deputy assistant Secretary of State, on April 6, 1960:
“The majority of the Cuban people support Castro. There is no effective political opposition... The only foreseeable means of alienating internal support is through disenchantment and disaffection and hardship... every possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba... a line of action which... makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government”4
On December 17, 2014, nearly 55 years after the U.S. imposed its commercial and financial blockade against Cuba, President Barack Obama surprised the world by announcing his intention to enter into negotiations aimed at re-establishing diplomatic relations with Cuba. It is widely believed that this step, which will include re-opening the U.S. embassy in Havana, will pave the way for an end to the embargo and eliminate certain travel restrictions on Americans looking to visit the island. In fact, some progress has already been made with regards to travel restrictions, as Americans are now able to use their debit and credit cards on visits to Cuba. Additionally, as of December 2014, Washington allows Americans to visit Cuba for the following 12 reasons5:
“family visits; official business of the U.S. government, foreign governments, and certain intergovernmental organizations; journalistic activity; professional research and professional meetings; educational activities; religious activities; public performances, clinics, workshops, athletic and other competitions, and exhibitions; support for the Cuban people; humanitarian projects; activities of private foundations or research or educational institutes; exportation, importation, or transmission of information or information materials; and certain authorized export transactions.”6
On February 19th, approximately two months after Obama’s announcement, Cuban vice president, Miguel Diaz-Canel, met with nine members of the U.S. House of Representatives in Havana. Subsequently, a second meeting will be held in Washington on February 27th. This upcoming meeting holds considerable interest for citizens of Cuba, as many of them expect this meeting to be followed by an announcement of plans to lift the embargo7, partially or completely, on the part of the Washington administration. In reality, however, it is unlikely that the embargo will be lifted unless the Cuban government agrees to meet certain preconditions mandated by Washington. For example, “lawyers are scrambling to determine whether normalized relations with Cuba will create an opportunity to get compensation for lost properties [5,9138 US companies’ expropriation by the Cuban government after 1959 revolution] now estimated to be worth nearly $7 billion9”. Further complicating matters is the fact that that lifting the embargo would require an act of congress; however, if Congress were to vote against eliminating the embargo, President Obama still retains the option of using his “executive power will” to bypass them and force the issue10.
It is well-known that the U.S. embargo has had tremendous consequences on the development of the Cuban economy. According to Havana, the direct economic damages to Cuba attributable to the embargo would exceed $1.1 trillion11 since 1962, “taking into account the depreciation of dollar against gold”12, with specific damages including the loss of earnings, monetary and financial restrictions, and social damages with regards to health, education, culture, the availability of food, etc. Additionally, “the embargo penalizes the activities of the bank and finance, insurance, petrol, chemical products, construction, infrastructures and transports, shipyard, agriculture and fishing, electronics and computing.”13
Despite its longevity and severity, the embargo was not particularly effective in achieving its objectives, as summarized by Lester D. Mallory. Cuban Socialism still managed to be lauded for a number of notable achievements, including attaining full employment, providing universal health care services and universal access to free education, and achieving higher life expectancy, lower child mortality, lower child malnutrition, and lower poverty rates compared to any other Latin American country (Navarro, 2014, Vandepitte, 2011). In fact, a 2014 study published by the World Bank confirmed that Cuba’s education system is comparable to those of Canada, Finland, and Singapore14. In the past, the World Bank also recognized that Cuba’s international “success in the fields of education and health, with social services that exceeds those of most developing countries and, in certain sectors, are comparable to those of the developed nations”15. Furthermore, based on estimates from the United Nations Development Program, Cuba is ranked third in Latin America in terms of the Human Development Index (HDI)16. More precisely, according to the United Nations Human Development Report 2014, “Cuba’s HDI value for 2013 is 0.815— which is in the very high human development category—positioning the country at 44 out of 187 countries and territories17”.
In addition to its success in areas of human development, Cuba has also been active in providing practical foreign aid in the form of sending highly-trained specialists, such as teachers, doctors, and engineers, to developing countries where they are needed. Since 1959, Cuba has been sending doctors to countries in Latin American and Africa that are unable to meet the health care needs of their citizens on their own; this is a practice for which the island is particularly well-regarded. Currently, “around 50,000 Cuban health professionals work in 66 countries worldwide18”. Recent examples of such assistance include sending Cuban doctors to West African countries during the recent Ebola outbreak and to Haiti after the earthquake in 2010 where they were largely credited with ending a cholera outbreak19. Additionally, Cuba also helps combat doctor shortages by providing free medical school to students from various developing countries. Havana’s Latin American Medical School20 is “the largest medical school in the world”21; since 2005, this institution has produced approximately 23,000 doctors and another 10,000 graduates are expected in the near future22.
Despite Cuba’s many social achievements, the United States has made many attempts to undermine the island’s revolution since the very beginning through propaganda, sabotage, and terrorism, including the planning and support of the Bay of Pigs Invasion in 1961. Fidel Castro was depicted as a military dictator who oppressed the individual freedoms of Cuba’s citizens. In addition to anti-Cuban propaganda, the U.S. government also engaged in direct sabotage aimed at weakening the socialist government, including “chemical and biological warfare against Cuba”, hundreds of attempts by the CIA to assassinate Fidel Castro, and the imposition of many economic and political sanctions that eliminated access to credit and loans from international banks and prevented free trade from flourishing (Blum, p.186-193).
Barack Obama’s efforts to re-establish diplomatic relations with Cuba have, in some circles, been interpreted as an admission that Washington’s repeated attempts to destroy the island’s socialist government over the last five decades have failed. However, the possibility exists that this move could be part of a larger strategy aimed at undermining Cuban socialism and dominating the island. History has shown that Washington is not averse to intervening in the domestic affairs of other countries in order to further its own interests; this includes a long list of instances where the U.S. facilitated the overthrow of governments that did not fully commit to their dictates, including Guatemala (1953-1954, 1960), Indonesia (1957-1958, 1965, 1975), the Dominican Republic (1960-1966), Chile (1964-1973), Cambodia (1955-1973), Laos (1957-1973), the Congo (1960-1964), Greece (1964-1974), Bolivia (1964-1975), Zaire (1975-1978), Iraq (1990-1991), and Afghanistan (1979-1992).
These and many other examples of successive American governments intervening in the internal affairs of other countries in order to destabilize governments that they viewed as even moderately socialist (incorrectly on some occasions) allows for some suspicion about the sincerity of the stated U.S. intentions for its re-engaging with Cuba.
For example, after its official re-opening, the U.S. Embassy in Havana could serve as a location for the planning and staging of strategies designed to facilitate the reversal of Cuban social, political and economic policies. Furthermore, there is also speculation that the motivation for re-establishing relations with Cuba could be to counter recent developments in the political and economic organization of Latin American and Caribbean nations, which have facilitated greater roles for China and Russia in the region.
Over the course of the last decade, Latin American and Caribbean nations have come together to create a number of economic and social organizations including: the Bolivarian Alliance for Our Americas (ALBA) in 2004; the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) in 2008; and, the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) in December 2011. ALBA, which was originally created by Venezuela and Cuba and currently counts 11 nations among its members, aims to establish a common regional currency (the Sucre) that could eventually replace the U.S. dollar in international trade transactions. UNASUR, which was created primarily through the efforts of Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez with support from Brazil’s Lula da Silva and Argentina’s Nestor Kirchner, currently boasts 12 member countries. In addition to establishing a common currency, this organization also aspires for a common passport and parliament for its members, modelled on the European Union. Finally, CELAC includes 33 Latin American and Caribbean nations representing over 600 million people; it seeks deeper integration and greater cooperation among its member countries.
In 2010, Bolivia’s President Evo Morales described CELAC as follows:
“A union of Latin American countries is the weapon against imperialism. It is necessary to create a regional body that excludes the United States and Canada. …Where there are U.S. military bases that do not respect democracy, where there is a political empire with his blackmailers, with its constraints, there is no development for that country, and especially there is no social peace and, therefore, it is the best time for prime ministers of Latin America and the Caribbean to gestate this great new organization without the United States to free our peoples in Latin America and the Caribbean.”23
Venezuela’s late president, Hugo Chávez added the following at the 23rd Rio Group summit:
“Now here, in Mexico, a document, a commitment, the creation of a body of Latin America and the Caribbean, without the USA, without Canada (…) Now we can say from Latin America, from Mexico (…) we have revived the dream and project of Bolívar.”24
The U.S. regards the creation of such organizations that strengthen links between Latin American and Caribbean nations as strategic threats. CELAC, for example, essentially serves the same function as the Organization for American States (OAS) but excludes the U.S. and Canada from participating. Furthermore, CELAC members will be receiving US$ 250 billion in investments over the next decade from China. The U.S. will likely not look favourably upon the prospect of losing access to the natural resources and enormous consumer market in this region to a key economic rival like China.
In addition to China, Russia is also gaining prominence as a significant economic player in the region. In July 2014, Russian President Vladimir Putin signed an agreement with Cuban officials granting Rosneft, an oil company that is majority owned by the Russian government, the rights to explore and extract hydrocarbon reserves located off of the island. During his meetings with Raul Castro and former leader Fidel Castro, which produced this agreement, Putin also “wrote off 90 percent of the more than $30 billion in Soviet-era debt Cuba owed Russia25”. Perhaps Obama should consider following the Russian President’s lead and offer his Cuban counterparts a gesture of goodwill by forgiving the potential compensation that could be sought by U.S. companies for property lost on account of the revolution.
The increasing prevalence of China and Russia in Latin America and the Caribbean represents a real danger to Washington’s future diplomatic, political and economic power and influence on a global scale. The strategic importance of these regions to the United States is clearly reflected in the Monroe Doctrine, which was established by the administration of President James Monroe in 1823 and stated “that further efforts by European nations to colonize land or interfere with states in North or South America would be viewed as acts of aggression, requiring U.S. intervention26”. Based on the spirit of the Monroe Doctrine, which essentially regards Latin America as the U.S.’s “backyard”, such Russian and Chinese advances in these regions could also be interpreted as acts of aggression, even though the nature of their involvement is quite different in comparison to the colonial ambitions of countries like Spain and Portugal in the early 19th century.
As long as Cuba exercises caution, does not lose sight of its own interests, and retains a certain degree of control when entering into negotiations with Washington, whether it be on February 27th or during any subsequent meetings, then it is entirely possible for the island to re-establish economic, financial and diplomatic ties with the United States without completely dismantling socialism and the benefits associated with it. Re-establishing diplomatic relations with Washington does not necessitate a clash with the aspirations of the revolution, because socialism does not require a closed commercial state, nor does it reject reforms aimed at revitalizing or strengthening the existing system.
Undertaking efforts to revitalize the Cuban economy is not a new phenomenon. In fact, Cuba has been trying to rejuvenate its socialist system since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. The Soviet Union provided Cuba with a great deal of support since the triumph of the revolution and was credited with playing a crucial role in its survival. The collapse of the Soviet Union meant Cuba lost its most important trading partner, which accounted for approximately 80% of the island’s exports and imports at that time; Cuba also had to do without the generous subsidies it received from the socialist block. Consequently, the U.S. also took this opportunity to introduce new measures to further strengthen the blockade, namely the Cuban Democracy Act in 1992 and the Helms-Burton Act in 1996. As a result, Cubans experienced significant hardships and a pronounced decrease in their living standards in what became known as the “Special Period” during 1990 – 1995. During this time, the Cuban economy essentially collapsed and its inhabitants experienced severe shortages in basic supplies, including food and medicine, resulting in malnutrition and associated health problems. In response, new measures were taken to restructure the Cuban economy, especially in the area of tourism. Many of the hotels and resort chains that are joint ventures with Spanish and Canadian companies are outcomes of the reforms that were implemented in response to the “Special Period”.
Re-establishing diplomatic relations with Washington and the movement towards free market policies will not diminish Cuba’s standing as a symbol of the global anti-imperialist movement. In reality, programs aimed at gradually liberalizing prices, privatization, abolishing the ration system, and eliminating the dual currency have been underway for about a decade. That means the model that was conceived in the early years of Cuban revolution has been evolving in order to meet the changing needs and desires of the Cuban people, which have also been evolving with developments in the international political, economic and social arenas. In other words, policies designed to revitalize the socialist system by reducing reliance on social engineering were being put in place since 1991. History has shown that granting too much power to a central planning authority, in terms of organizing the social, political and economic activities of a state, has the potential to engender a situation where constant interference on the part of the government becomes inevitable. In fact, it could be argued that social engineering and the American embargo were the two main enemies of the Cuban revolution. A more open economy can provide buyers, sellers, and producers in the marketplace with greater freedom with which to co-ordinate their activities voluntarily and achieve common goals and ends for society without the need for constant interference on the part of state authorities. The current progress made in terms of re-establishing a normalized relationship with Washington might witness further progress in Cuban’s socialist system. Hopefully, this can be achieved through a cautious and sensible approach that will ensure Cubans never return to the serfdom that preceded the 1959 revolution.
Notes:
1. https://archive.org/stream/KacikeJournal/yaremko_djvu.txt
2. https://archive.org/stream/KacikeJournal/yaremko_djvu.txt
3. https://revcom.us/a/056/cubahist-en.html
4. http://rt.com/op-edge/us-cuba-economic-benefits-089/
5. http://rt.com/op-edge/us-cuba-economic-benefits-089/
6. http://www.treasury.gov/press-center/press-releases/pages/jl9740.aspx
7. October 2014, despite the United Nations General Assembly’s resolution calling for the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba to be lifted for the 23rd consecutive year , Washington once again elected to maintain its embargo.
8. These companies include “ExxonMobil, Coca-Cola, Freeport-McMoRan, Colgate-Palmolive, Procter and Gamble, Goodyear, Firestone, General Motors, Owens-Illinois, Avon Products, Starwood Hotels & Resorts Worldwide and many others” (http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-economic-sanctions-against-cuba-the-failure-of-a-cruel-and-irrational-policy/7024).
9. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/22/world/cuba-seizures-now-present-opportunities.html?_r=0
10. http://www.globalresearch.ca/repealing-the-us-embargo-on-cuba-the-legislative-process-in-the-us-congress/5424312
11. http://rt.com/business/186528-cuba-embargo-economic-demage/
12. http://rt.com/business/186528-cuba-embargo-economic-demage/
13. http://www.cetim.ch/oldsite/2003/03js04w4.htm
14. http://www.worldbank.org/content/dam/Worldbank/document/LAC/Great_Teachers-How_to_Raise_Student_Learning-Barbara-Bruns-Advance%20Edition.pdf
15. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/world-bank-cuba-has-the-b_b_5925864.html
16. “The HDI is a summary measure for assessing long-term progress in three basic dimensions of human development: a long and healthy life, access to knowledge and a decent standard of living... a long and healthy life is measured by life expectancy. Access to knowledge is measured by: i) mean years of education among the adult population, which is the average number of years of education received in a life-time by people aged 25 years and older; and ii) expected years of schooling for children of school-entry age, which is the total number of years of schooling a child of school-entry age can expect to receive if prevailing patterns of age-specific enrolment rates stay the same throughout the child’s life. Standard of living is measured by Gross National Income (GNI) per capita expressed in constant 2011 international dollars converted using purchasing power parity (PPP) rates” http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CUB.pdf)
17. http://hdr.undp.org/sites/all/themes/hdr_theme/country-notes/CUB.pdf
18. http://country.eiu.com/article.aspx?articleid=1782243562&Country=Cuba&topic=Politics&subtopic=Forecast&subsubtopic=Political+stability&u=1&pid=532225237&oid=532225237&uid=1
19. http://www.un.org/press/en/2014/sgsm15619.doc.htms
20. “The University of Toronto has 850 medical students and Harvard University has 735. ELAM has twelve times more students than those two schools combined: 19,550.” (http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2012/06/02/cubatrained_doctors_making_difference_around_the_world.html)
21. https://www.ted.com/talks/gail_reed_where_to_train_the_world_s_doctors_cuba/transcript?language=en
22. https://www.ted.com/talks/gail_reed_where_to_train_the_world_s_doctors_cuba/transcript?language=en
23. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States#cite_note-telesurtv.net-10
24. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Community_of_Latin_American_and_Caribbean_States#cite_note-15
25. http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/7/11/cuba-russia-putin.htmls
26. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monroe_Doctrine