What did the recent European Parliament "debate" on Cuba leave behind?
HAVANA, Cuba, Jun 10 (ACN) Countless media have covered the debate organized by the European Parliament on what its promoters decided to call the political and human rights situation in Cuba. Held this Tuesday during the Plenary Session, the exchange brought to light evidence that may well lead toat leastthree conclusions that no one would be able to deny. First place, the expressions of solidarity with Cuba by a significant number of Eurodeputies reveal the prestige earned by the Caribbean nation through a long history of cooperation with many countries, based only on the Revolutions humanist sense and respect for life. Excelling in this regard were the interventions of parliamentarian Fernando Barrena to describe the serious across-the-board effects of the U.S. economic, financial and commercial blockade, condemned 27 times by the United Nations. Manuel Pineda also pointed out that Cuba respects human rights and stands as an example of international solidarity with other nations and praised the fact that a year ago, when COVID-19 was at its worst, Cuban sent medical brigades to Italy to help fight the virus. Furthermore, the Irish chapter of the Network of Intellectuals and Artists in Defense of Humanity called on its legislators to oppose the maneuver against Cuba, whereas the Communist Party of Ireland decried that the Eurodeputies who called for the debate have never cared about the rights of the Cuban people, nor have they raised their voices to condemn the economic blockade against 11 million Cubans, regardless of their ideology. The second conclusion is that foreign interference continues in the current political context and Cuba is still the target of all kinds of maneuvers aimed at twisting its reality and influencing its future. It was impossible for the European Parliament not to mention the U.S. blockade, so they included in their draft resolution a request to end such a genocidal policy and remove Cuba from the list of state sponsors of terrorism. However, it also states its solidarity with the San Isidro Movement and with those who they call activists and defenders of human rights and freedom of expression in Cuba, and calls for the end of the alleged persecution of demonstrators and the beginning of talks with the aforesaid movement. Throughout these months, especially after November 27, 2020, the Cuban people have been aware of what is lying in wait behind the misnamed San Isidro movement; they know who its sponsors are and the intentions of the money they send to Havana. Fostering unhealthy dissent, divisiveness, confrontation and unrest in a country that has always struggled to keep all its citizens united is the goal of those that the European Parliament calls social activists. Last but not least, it highlights the clear vision of Cuban diplomats, trained under a system of international relations in favor of respect and tolerance among all nations as a function of Peace but aware that national independence is Cubas most precious asset. On the eve of the debate, the Cuban embassy in Brussels denounced the double standards of the European Parliament and its intention to hinder relations between Cuba and the European Union and undermine the implementation of the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement between the two countries, which it duly described as an ultra-right-wing ruse. Although the resolution issued by the European Parliament reiterates its support for the Political Dialogue and Cooperation Agreement and the Union's approach of critical engagement with Cuba to assist the country in its modernization, it also states that this engagement is intended to openly addressing their disagreements. Definitely, and this is perhaps a fourth conclusion, it remains to be seen whether what they call disagreements are nothing more than dissatisfactions that the neoliberal system and the White House continue to be incapable of solving in the face of the strength of a country that stands and works for itself and for the world and does not allow itself to be the object of other people's whims.