Olga Salanueva, wife of one the five Cuban anti-terrorist fighters unjustly incarcerated in the United States today led a call in the capital for the President of that country, Barack Obama, to release these patriots.

It is time that Obama responds to the question of why these men who were fighting against terrorism are imprisoned; only he has the power to release them, said the spouse of René González, during an event at the headquarters of the Cuban Institute for Friendship with the Peoples (ICAP).

During a meeting with members of the U.S. Cuba solidarity group Global Exchange, Salanueva explained certain aspects of the torturous legal route that was followed by the Five’s defense team in order to obtain a re-sentencing hearing for three of them (Antonio Guerrero, Fernando González and Ramón Labañino).

Following a recount of the terrorist attacks suffered by Cuba over the past five decades, Magalis Llort, mother of Fernando González, emphasized the paradoxical situation experienced by her son, Antonio, René, Ramón and Gerardo Hernández who were fighting against attacks of this kind.

Perhaps you do not know who Luis Posada Carriles, Orlando Bosch or Félix Rodríguez are, but we do because it is they who have carried out and continue hatching criminal plots against Cuba, said Rosa Aurora Freijanes, wife of Fernando, before calling on those present to demonstrate their solidarity.

I would ask that you inform yourselves about this case and ask your Congressmen and women to get involved and act in the name of justice, she stated.

Also present during the event were ICAP President Kenia Serrano; Mirta Rodríguez and Irma Sehwerert, mothers of Antonio and René, respectively.

Global Exchange, which arrived in Cuba on this occasion with more than one hundred members, is a solidarity organization that promotes visits and exchanges with representatives of different social sectors in Cuba. (AIN)

Granma has received numerous calls from readers questioning why 2010 is being defined as the 52nd Year of the Revolution when we have just finished celebrating the 50th anniversary of that historic event.

This is something that we have explained before on previous occasions, but which always needs to be clarified again.

So as to clarify these concerns, we should say that the name chosen is correct because in effect, from this January 1st our revolutionary process will begin the 52nd year of its existence, although the anniversary will be celebrated on the same day in 2011.

Perhaps the following example will help to better explain the issue. When a baby is born, its first year begins from the moment he is born, that is to say, it includes that and every one of the 364 days that follow until s/he celebrates their first birthday. And from that moment onwards begins their second year.

This logic indicates that during the course of 2010, we are in the 52nd Year of the Revolution.

Of course, the names of the past two years appears to have created confusion but if we analyze the situation using the previous explanation, this should serve to clarify the years and the anniversaries: 2008, was the 50th Year of the Revolution and 2009 was the 50th anniversary of the Triumph of the Revolution.

The agreement by the National Assembly of People’s Power is that the denomination of the years will continue by consecutive numbers except if there is any event or special commemoration that should be highlighted for its exceptional nature. This was what occurred in 2009 which should have been Year 51 of the Revolution if we had not celebrated the extraordinary 50th anniversary of the Triumph of the Revolution.

.........................................................................................................................................................................................

THE year 2009 has ended and the international panorama offers a curious gamut of conflicts, crossroads, frustrations and extreme situations intermixed with positive hopes and developments, all combined with the serious global economic crisis provoked by the United States. Its devastating effects extended vertiginously to the rest of the world, starting with the capitalist developed countries, but had its worst effect on the nations of the Third World.

In the midst of plunging economic indicators and their social consequences of increased poverty, hunger and disease – as confirmed by international agencies and the specialized UN bodies – 2009 was also overshadowed by the continuation of the wars of aggression and military occupation in Iraq and Afghanistan and dangerously extended to Pakistan; the military-oligarchical coup d’état that deposed the constitutional government of José Manuel Zelaya in Honduras; and the installation of seven U.S. military bases in Colombia.

The great frustration of the year was doubtless the presidential action of Barack Obama, who was inaugurated as president in January surrounded by an aureole that seemed to presage the possibility of certain changes – albeit minimum – as he had promised in his spectacular campaign. But, within a few months, he rapidly demonstrated in his actions the real essence of his administration, thus confirming the foresight of those whose who always doubted such an eventuality in the context of the unalterable nature of the imperialist phenomenon and its need for wars, acts of aggression, domination and plunder in order to survive and impose itself on the world as such. The impossibility of reverting those intentions became evident within a few months, but not only that: the new U.S. president took measures and aggressive steps that his disastrous predecessor might even have envied.

Whether he has done so under brutal pressure, whether it has been the fruit of internal contradictions within his own government, whether he is acting as he is in search of possibly securing a second term; all of that is currently the subject of world debate and argument, but one that will not change the outcome in any way.

Without any doubt, the months that have gone by under the new White House incumbent demonstrate the need to continue confronting imperialist politics with renewed energy, particularly on the part of the countries of Asia, Africa, and Latin America and the Caribbean, which continue to be the preferred and propitious terrain for the exercise of hegemony and plunder.

The global economic crisis was accompanied by an environmental crisis whose most visible and threatening element is climate change, which is advancing uncontainably. It has proved impossible to halt it either with the ill-treated Kyoto Protocol or with summits like that of Copenhagen, whose degrading developments and shameful results demonstrated that, in a suicidal manner, the United States and the developed capitalist world are ignoring dangers that could lead to the end of humanity.

The Third World nations will pay the price for the depredators of world capitalism and small island states will disappear little by little if there is no end to the irresponsible contamination of the environment on the part of those who are currently and criminally practicing it in order to swell their pockets, thus accelerating the melting of icecaps and increased sea levels, drought and natural disasters.

The global economic crisis was accompanied by an energy crisis, already looming as a consequence of extremely high oil prices. The indiscriminate increase in biofuels on the pretext of replacing oil and avoiding its high price provoked a food crisis, which likewise affected, obviously, the poorest countries and the most vulnerable population sectors.

The AH1N1 influenza pandemic also made its presence felt throughout the year, bringing yet another calamity to the inhabitants of the earth, who have still not been liberated from HIV/AIDS and are fighting against dengue fever in tropical regions. The economic crisis, compounded by negligence, extreme apathy and diverted resources on the part of oblivious and irresponsible governments resulted in particularly acute effects being felt in certain countries.

The European Union finally managed to reach agreement over implementing the Lisbon Treaty, which replaced the constitutional treaty after years of fruitless attempts on the part of members to have it approved. After last-minute reluctance on the part of Poland and the Czech Republic, which enabled these two nations to secure certain concessions, the new legal framework for the union of 27 countries was signed.

However, the independent political role that the European Union could play in the world – and within Europe itself – remained unseen and, in 2009, it continued departing from its original intentions, becoming steadily more dependent on the positions of U.S. administrations, whether of Bush or of Obama, to which it virtually subordinated itself at the most important international junctures. The existence of a majority of right-wing governments within it; the relations that many EU countries are obliged to maintain with Washington given their membership of the NATO political-military pact; and the high-level of U.S. economic and cultural penetration after World War II and the disintegration of the USSR and the European socialist camp are factors that combine in one way or another to prevent the European Union from exercising a more active leadership.

On the contrary, in Japan, the arrival of the Democratic Party and its allies brought to an end the almost 50 years of uninterrupted rule of the Liberal Democratic Party, closely associated with the United States throughout that extensive period, and the reason for defense agreements that turned the country into a kind of Asian aircraft carrier for the U.S. armed forces. As he announced during his electoral campaign, Prime Minister Hatoyama is prepared to discuss alternatives with Washington that would transform and more effectively regulate the huge military presence in his country.

Throughout 2009, the development of certain previously initiated processes merit attention given their regional and global significance.

Despite the world crisis, one of these was the sustained growth of the economy of the People’s Republic of China and that country’s consolidation as a major economic power that many experts consider as already the second in the world.

In relation to Africa, it continued its conversion into a major world oil exporter via various contracts and agreements, according to the country involved, thus increasing the presence of oil transnationals and their profits, as well as the income of national governments benefiting from the oil boom. However, there are no reports of any notable improvements in the living standards of those peoples or any sustained reduction of poverty and underdevelopment.

One ray of hope, together with multiple concrete realities, continued reflecting its light from Latin America and the Caribbean. The processes of economic, political and social transformations involving a large number of Latin American and Caribbean countries in various forms have consolidated and, despite the onslaught of the economic crisis and the premeditated policy on the part of the U.S. government and associated and dependent national oligarchies intended to obstruct and liquidate them, they have advanced in many spheres of cooperation and integration.

The Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America (ALBA), created five years ago on the basis of agreements between Cuba and Venezuela signed by Presidents Fidel Castro and Hugo Chávez, emerged as an unprecedented scheme of solidarity-focused and mutually beneficial integration, moving beyond the purely commercial union that had previously characterized other integration efforts in the region. The achievements of ALBA became rapidly evident and that provided a framework for the extension of the Alliance to other countries such as Bolivia, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Dominica, Antigua & Barbuda, St. Vincent & the Grenadines and Honduras. Achievements that were celebrated at the end of 2009 with new goals and aspirations based on the principles of Simón Bolívar and José Martí and the construction of the Patria Grande (Greater Homeland).

The June 28 coup d’état in Honduras against the constitutional president José Manuel Zelaya is attributed, among other things, to his decision to join ALBA and to try and lead the country toward sovereignty and self-development, on the margins of the closed national oligarchy of a handful of families who have secularly exploited the country. As has been reiterated, this was a strike at ALBA involving the United States, which was already feeling the need to express its rejection of the Alliance and make patent that it was disposed to confront it on what it viewed as its weakest link.

Contrary to its aspirations, the year that is ending witnessed the birth of a popular resistance movement prepared to convert that setback into a victory, as confirmed by its firm decision not to demobilize but to do battle as the worthy heirs of Morazán.

Latin America and the Caribbean are undoubtedly moving into a new epoch and nothing is nor will be the same as before. Washington’s failure to impose the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) marked a definitive turning point in the situation, accompanied by the successive ascents to government of various progressive, nationalist, popular and even anti-imperialist forces – distinct in style and composition – but united by one common denominator that is integrating them and bringing them closer together.

Cuba’s entry into the Rio Group and the lifting of the sanctions that the United States had managed to impose on the Organization of American States, similarly expressed the decadence of the empire’s power and the loss of its all-embracing influence over its former "backyard."

The New Year is not arriving in exactly equal form to all the regions of the planet, although global problems such as climate change and the economic crisis would seem to admit no witnesses and in them, we are all protagonists. Deceptions, crises and hopes could continue to characterize the successor to this convulsive 2009.

CARACAS.— President Hugo Chávez today confirmed that Venezuela’s only aspiration is to live in peace with Colombia, although the winds of war promoted by the United States in the region are forcing the nation to prepare itself for possible acts of aggression.

"As Simón Bolívar said, peace is our port and we have spent the past 11 years saying that that is what we want," affirmed Chávez in La Guajira, Zulia, where he went to salute soldiers from the Western Integral Defense Region.

The dignitary confirmed that the priority of his administration is to work toward guaranteeing a dignified life for the citizens of the country.

"We are here to peacefully build the homeland of the future, which is already starting to become a reality, and not to attack anyone," he noted, lamenting the fact that recent events are heading in the opposite direction.

Following the escalation of the Colombian-Venezuelan conflict, caused by the installation of seven U.S. military bases on Colombian territory, Bogotá has announced the strengthening of its military contingent on the border, along with verbal attacks on the part of Defense Minister Gabriel Silva.

Caracas has also condemned the incursion into its territory of Colombian paramilitaries and a drone aircraft, presumably engaged on intelligence tasks.

These are indicators of aggression, warned Chávez.

For the head of state, the only possible responses are defense preparations and maintaining calm in order not to rise to provocations. (PL)

...................................................................................................................................................................
REFLECTIONS OF FIDEL
The right of humanity to exist
(Taken from CubaDebate)

CLIMATE change is already causing considerable damage and hundreds of millions of poor people are suffering the consequences.

The most advanced research centers assure that very little time is left for avoiding an irreversible catastrophe. James Hansen, of NASA’s Goddard Institute, says that a level of 350 parts carbon dioxide per million is still tolerable; today, however, the figure is in excess of 390 and it is increasing at a rate of 2 parts per million every year, exceeding the levels of 600,000 years ago. Each one of the last two decades has been the hottest ever recorded. The abovementioned gas increased 80 parts per million in the last 150 years.

The ice of the Artic Sea, the vast, two-kilometer-thick layer that covers Greenland, the glaciers of South America which feed its principle sources of freshwater, the colossal volume that covers Antarctica, the layer that covers Kilimanjaro, the ice that covers the Himalayas and the enormous frozen mass of Siberia are visibly melting. Notable scientists fear qualitative jumps in these natural phenomena that give rise to changes.

Humanity placed great hope in the Copenhagen Summit, after the Kyoto Protocol signed in 1997, which entered into effect in 2005. The summit’s resounding failure gave way to shameful episodes that require due clarification.

The United States, with less than 5% of the world’s population, issues 25% of its carbon dioxide. The new president of the United States had promised to cooperate with international efforts to confront a problem that is affecting that country as much as the rest of the world. During meetings prior to the summit, it became evident that the leaders of that nation and of the richest nations maneuvered to make the weight of the sacrifice fall onto emerging and poor countries.

A large number of leaders and thousands of representatives of social movements and scientific institutions, determined to fight to preserve humanity from the greatest threat in its history went to Copenhagen, invited by the summit’s organizers. In order to focus on the political aspects of the summit, I will not go into details concerning the brutality of the Danish public forces, which attacked thousands of demonstrators and guests of the social movements and scientists who went to Denmark’s capital.

In Copenhagen, real chaos prevailed, and unbelievable things happened. Social movements and scientific institutions were not allowed to attend the debates. There were heads of state and government who were not even able to issue their opinions on vital problems. Obama and the leaders of the richest countries took over the conference with the complicity of the Danish government. The agencies of the United Nations were relegated.

Barack Obama, who arrived on the last day of the summit to remain there for only 12 hours, met with two groups of guests "hand-picked" by him and his collaborators. Together with one of them, he met with the rest of the highest delegations in the plenary hall. He spoke and immediately left via the back door. In that plenary session, except for the small group selected by him, the representatives of other countries were not allowed to speak. During that meeting, the presidents of Bolivia and the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela were allowed to speak, because the president of the summit had no alternative than to concede that in the face of the strenuous demands of those present.

In an adjoining room, Obama met with the leaders of the richest countries, several of the most important emerging states, and two very poor ones. He presented a document, negotiated with two or three of the most important countries, ignored the United Nations General Assembly, gave press conferences, and marched away like Julius Caesar during one of his victorious campaigns in Asia Minor, which prompted him to exclaim, "I came, I saw, I conquered."

Even Gordon Brown, prime minister of the United Kingdom, had affirmed on October 19, "If we do not reach a deal at this time, let us be in no doubt: once the damage from unchecked emissions growth is done, no retrospective global agreement in some future period can undo that choice. By then it will be irretrievably too late."

Brown concluded his speech with dramatic words: "We cannot afford to fail. If we act now; if we act together; if we act with vision and resolve, success at Copenhagen is still within our reach. But if we falter, the earth itself will be at risk… For the planet there is no plan B."

Now he arrogantly stated that the United Nations cannot be taken hostage by a small group of countries like Cuba, Venezuela, Bolivia, Nicaragua and Tuvalu, while accusing China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other emerging states of giving in to the seduction of the United States and signing a document that dumps the Kyoto Protocol into the garbage bin and contains no binding commitment whatsoever on the part of the United States and its rich allies.

I feel obliged to remember that the United Nations was born just six decades ago, after the last World War. There were no more than 50 independent countries at the time. Today, it is made up of more than 190 independent states, after the odious colonial system ceased to exist because of the determined struggles of the peoples. Even the People’s Republic of China was denied UN membership for many years, and a puppet government held its representation in that institution and on its privileged Security Council.

The tenacious support of a growing number of Third World countries was indispensable to the international recognition of China, and an extremely important factor for the United States and its allies in NATO recognizing its (China’s) rights in the United Nations.

In the historic struggle against fascism, the Soviet Union made the largest contribution. More than 25 million of its sons and daughters died, and enormous destruction ravaged the country. Out of that struggle, it emerged as a superpower, capable of countering, in part, the absolute dominion of the imperial system of the United States and the former colonial powers in their unlimited plunder of the peoples of the Third World. When the USSR disintegrated, the United States extended its political and military power toward the East, toward the heart of Russia, and its influence over the rest of Europe grew. There is nothing strange about what happened in Copenhagen.

I would like to emphasize the unjust and offensive nature of the statements of the prime minister of the United Kingdom, and the yanki attempt to impose, as a summit agreement, a document that was never discussed at any time with the participating countries.

At a December 21 press conference, Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Rodríguez stated a truth that is impossible to deny; I will use some of his exact paragraphs: "I would like to emphasized that in Copenhagen, there was no agreement whatsoever of the Conference of the Parties; no decision whatsoever was made with respect to binding or non-binding commitments or international law; there was simply no agreement in Copenhagen.

"The summit was a failure and a deception of world public opinion…. The lack of political will was laid bare….

"It was a step backward in the actions of the international community to prevent or mitigate the effects of climate change….

"The average world temperature could rise by 5 degrees…."

Immediately, our foreign minister added other interesting facts about possible consequences according to the latest scientific investigations.

"From the Kyoto Protocol to date, the emissions of the developed countries have risen by 12.8%... and 55% of that volume comes from the United States.

"One person in the United States consumes, on average, 25 barrels of oil annually; one European, 11; one Chinese citizen, less than two, and one Latin American or Caribbean, less than one.

"Thirty countries, including those of the European Union, consume 80% of the fuel produced."

The very real fact is that the developed countries which signed the Kyoto Protocol drastically increased their emissions. They now wish to replace the base of emissions adopted starting 1990 with that of 2005, with which the United States, the maximum issuer, would reduce its emissions of 25 years earlier by only 3%. It is a shameless mockery of world opinion.

The Cuban foreign minister, speaking on behalf of a group of ALBA countries, defended China, India, Brazil, South Africa and other important states with emerging economies, affirming the concept reached in Kyoto of "common, but differentiated responsibilities; meaning that the historic accumulators and the developed countries, those responsible for this catastrophe, have different responsibilities from those of the small island states, or those of the countries of the South, above all the least-developed countries….

"Responsibilities means financing; responsibilities means the transfer of technology under acceptable conditions, and then Obama makes a play on words, and instead of talking about common but differentiated responsibilities, talks about ‘common, but differentiated responses.’

"He leaves the plenary without deigning to listen to anybody, nor had he listened to anybody before his speech."

At a subsequent press conference, before leaving the Danish capital, Obama affirmed, "We've made meaningful and unprecedented breakthrough in Copenhagen. For the first time in history the major economies have come together to accept their responsibility…"

In his clear and irrefutable statement, our foreign minister affirmed, "What is meant by ‘the major economies have come together to accept their responsibility?’ It means that they are shrugging off an important part of the burden signified by the financing for the mitigation and adaptation of countries — above all the entire South — to climate change, onto China, Brazil, India and South Africa; because it must be said that in Copenhagen, there was an assault on, a mugging of China, Brazil, India, and South Africa, and of all of the countries euphemistically referred to as developing."

These were the resounding and irrefutable words with which our foreign minister recounted what happened in Copenhagen.

I should add that, at 10 a.m. on December 19th, after our Vice President Esteban Lazo and the Cuban foreign minister had left, there was a belated attempt to resuscitate the corpse of Copenhagen as a summit agreement. At that point, virtually no heads of state or even ministers were left. Once again, the exposé of the remaining members of the Cuban, Venezuela, Bolivian, Nicaraguan and other countries’ delegations defeated the maneuver. That was how the inglorious summit ended.

Another fact that cannot be forgotten was that, during the most critical moments of that day, in the early morning, the Cuban foreign minister, together with the delegations that were waging their dignified battle, offered UN Secretary General Ban Ki-moon their cooperation in the increasingly difficult battle that is being waged, and in the efforts that must be undertaken in the future to preserve the life of our species.

The environmental group WWF warned that climate change will become uncontrollable in the next 5 to 10 years if emissions are not drastically cut.

But it is not necessary to demonstrate the essence of what is being said here about what Obama did.

The U.S. president stated on Wednesday, December 23 that people were right to be disappointed by the outcome of the Summit on Climate Change. In an interview with the CBS television network, the president noted, "Rather than see a complete collapse in Copenhagen, in which nothing at all got done and would have been a huge backward step, at least we kind of held ground and there wasn't too much backsliding from where we were…"

Obama, according to the news dispatch, was the one most criticized by those countries which, virtually unanimously, believe that the outcome of the summit was disastrous.

The UN is now in a predicament. Asking other countries to adhere to the arrogant and antidemocratic agreement would be humiliating for many states.

Continuing the battle and demanding at all meetings, particularly those of Bonn and Mexico, the right of humanity to exist, with the moral authority and strength the truth affords us, is, in our opinion, the only way forward.