[lnkForumImage]
TotalShareware - Download Free Software
Usa Forum
 Home | Login | Register | Search 


 

Forums >

soc.culture.cuba

Raul Castro no podra gobernar Cuba

PL

9/7/2006 9:57:00 AM

"Raúl Castro no podrá gobernar Cuba"
THOMAS SHANNON
El secretario de Estado adjunto para Asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental
de EE.UU. señala que solo una transición a la democracia puede evitar
que se genere inestabilidad en Cuba.

La situación política de Cuba es un tema de particular interés para el
Gobierno Estadounidense debido a la historia que vincula a ambas
naciones. Por esa razón, el secretario de Estado adjunto para Asuntos
del Hemisferio Occidental del Gobierno Estadounidense, Thomas Shannon,
dio una videoconferencia en la embajada de su país en Lima y respondió a
las preguntas de El Comercio y de otros periodistas.

¿Cómo observa EE.UU. la etapa que se está viviendo en Cuba ?
Lo que se está viviendo en Cuba actualmente es una transferencia de
poder de Fidel Castro a un grupo de individuos que representan a las
instituciones del Estado cubano, un estado totalitario. Es una
transferencia en cámara lenta, más que nada porque Castro está en un
proceso de recuperación y probablemente no va a tener la capacidad de
manejar el gobierno como antes. Sin embargo, va a actuar como un árbitro
durante una negociación entre las diferentes instituciones del Estado
que determinará como van a compartir el poder. Esa transferencia va a
ser difícil porque no hay figura en Cuba que sea similar a Fidel Castro
y cuando él no sea capaz de actuar como un árbitro va a empezar una
competencia por el poder.

Para su gobierno, ¿qué papel juega Raúl Castro?
Es interesante que hoy en día en las Américas después de haberse firmado
la Carta democrática en donde 34 países de la región se han comprometido
a reconocer la democracia como única forma de gobierno legítima todavía
exista un régimen en el que su líder designa a su sucesor. Raúl Castro
no es Fidel Castro, probablemente no tiene la misma capacidad para
gobernar y lo que vamos a ver es una transferencia de poder a
instituciones que van a combatir el poder. Raúl Castro quiere ser un
personaje clave en esta transferencia, pero no tiene la capacidad para
manejar el Estado Cubano por lo que tendrá que compartir el poder.
Creemos que esa relación es inestable por su propia naturaleza. La única
manera en que ellos puedan seguir en el poder después de que Fidel
Castro ya no sea un factor en la isla es a través de la represión. Por
eso, la única manera de garantizar la estabilidad política en Cuba es a
través de una transición exitosa a la democracia.

¿Cómo se puede alcanzar esa transición?
Desde nuestro punto de vista, hoy es un momento propicio para que la
comunidad internacional empiece a hablar con el Estado Cubano, pero
especialmente con el pueblo cubano acerca de la importancia de una
transición a la democracia. La razón de nuestra visión es que solo por
medio de una transición exitosa a la democracia será posible garantizar
la estabilidad política en Cuba y prevenir el surgimiento de una oleada
de migrantes que busquen huir de la isla. Pero también, y lo más
importante, solo con un paso a la democracia será posible reintegrar
Cuba en el sistema interamericano. Sabemos que no hay manera de imponer
soluciones políticas en Cuba, ni por parte de Estados Unidos, ni de otro
país, solo el pueblo cubano puede tomar las decisiones y las acciones
necesarias para determinar su futuro. Sin embargo, es importante que el
pueblo cubano tenga el espacio político y el contexto para determinar su
propio futuro, o sea que la solución no sea impuesta por el Estado, sino
que el pueblo sea el que tome la decisión sobre la forma de su gobierno.

Sigue Washington considerando que el bloqueo comercial y el apoyo a la
disidencia cubana son el camino adecuado para la transición de la isla a
la democracia a pesar de que no se han logrado resultados positivos
usando ese método. ¿Continuarán con esa estrategia ante un gobierno de
Raúl Castro?
Hay que analizar varios puntos. Primero, nuestra política hacia Cuba ha
tenido varios propósitos: Uno es negar recursos a un estado totalitario
para no permitir que sean usados en la represión política; y dos, los
recursos que hemos tratado de entregar a la sociedad civil en Cuba
tienen como propósito expandirla y permitir que tengan un espacio real
de diálogo sobre el futuro de su país. Desde nuestro punto de vista es
una política adecuada por el momento, pero es importante entender que el
propósito de nuestra asistencia es una transición a la democracia.
Cuando empiece una transición a la democracia, nosotros estaremos
dispuestos a sentarnos para profundizar nuestra relación con Cuba y ver
la manera en que podemos empezar a levantar las sanciones que hoy en día
existen.

¿Cómo consideran ustedes la situación de la relación cubano-venezolana?
¿Es una amenaza para la seguridad en la región?
Sabemos que es una relación muy estrecha y por eso pensamos que
Venezuela podría jugar un papel muy importante en cuanto a la transición
a la democracia en Cuba, ya que podría comunicarle al liderazgo de la
isla la importancia de realizar una apertura política. Es nuestra
esperanza que un país como Venezuela, que es parte de la OEA y que
aprobó y firmó la Carta Democrática, aproveche este momento para apoyar
y propiciar una transición exitosa. Sería muy triste que un país de las
Américas opte por seguir apoyando a un estado totalitario.

La ficha
Nombre: Thomas A. Shannon
Profesión: diplomático.
Nacionalidad: estadounidense.
Cargo: secretario de Estado adjunto para Asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental.
Organización: Gobierno Estadounidense.
Trayectoria: ex director de Asuntos Andinos, ex asistente especial en
Asuntos del Hemisferio Occidental.


Bruno Rivas

http://www.elcomercioperu.com.pe/EdicionImpresa/Html/2006-09-06/ImEcEntrevista05...
31 Answers

Steve Mitchum

1/22/2011 4:48:00 PM

0

His ratings were more than healthy. It's about the Comcast deal, and
internal politics.

smballoon

1/22/2011 5:04:00 PM

0

On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:18:30 -0500, "serveyerself"
<serveyerself@comcast.net> wrote:

>Probably dropped due to poor ratings. The Factor was killing him in that
>slot.

But to the extent that left-wing commentators could obtain ratings in
a country where less than 20% share their views, Olbermann's ratings
were actually very good relatively speaking.

While I found Olbermann to be among the most vitriolic and shallow of
commentators on a cable news show and far less civil than anyone on
Fox News, Olbermann's departure will only help the left appear less
insane and less dishonest and less unfair to those in the middle. And
the middle is still where elections are won and lost.

Olbermann's departure could also elevate Rachel Maddow who is a far
more informed and rational ultra-liberal commentator. She's
intellectually far more formidable than left-wing commentators such as
Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher and can actually articulate arguments
that don't easily collapse once scrutiny is applied.

So this is not a good day for those on the right as they also still
need to win over those in the middle to win elections. Obama's
chances for re-election just shot up two-fold, and perhaps more so if
it turns out that Comcast was responsible for pushing Olbermann out. A
politically conservative leaning corporation pushing out an icon of
the left will only make such left appear more sympathetic to those in
the middle.

Again, it's those in the middle who decide elections. On the other
hand, so long as vitriolic leftists such as Bill Maher still keep
their shows where they spew out their hate and contempt of anyone who
has different political beliefs than they do, the damage to
conservative political prospects will probably not be as great as it
could be.

doerz

1/22/2011 5:14:00 PM

0

and to those of us in the middle WHO ARE RATIONAL THINKERS, none of what you
logically posit below matters one dasm bit. now, for the irrational thinkers
of the middle..........


<smballoon@aol.comnospam> wrote in message
news:570mj6h1j1c0bfi5thpto9oc8heqemsuei@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:18:30 -0500, "serveyerself"
> <serveyerself@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>Probably dropped due to poor ratings. The Factor was killing him in that
>>slot.
>
> But to the extent that left-wing commentators could obtain ratings in
> a country where less than 20% share their views, Olbermann's ratings
> were actually very good relatively speaking.
>
> While I found Olbermann to be among the most vitriolic and shallow of
> commentators on a cable news show and far less civil than anyone on
> Fox News, Olbermann's departure will only help the left appear less
> insane and less dishonest and less unfair to those in the middle. And
> the middle is still where elections are won and lost.
>
> Olbermann's departure could also elevate Rachel Maddow who is a far
> more informed and rational ultra-liberal commentator. She's
> intellectually far more formidable than left-wing commentators such as
> Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher and can actually articulate arguments
> that don't easily collapse once scrutiny is applied.
>
> So this is not a good day for those on the right as they also still
> need to win over those in the middle to win elections. Obama's
> chances for re-election just shot up two-fold, and perhaps more so if
> it turns out that Comcast was responsible for pushing Olbermann out. A
> politically conservative leaning corporation pushing out an icon of
> the left will only make such left appear more sympathetic to those in
> the middle.
>
> Again, it's those in the middle who decide elections. On the other
> hand, so long as vitriolic leftists such as Bill Maher still keep
> their shows where they spew out their hate and contempt of anyone who
> has different political beliefs than they do, the damage to
> conservative political prospects will probably not be as great as it
> could be.


FerretBill

1/22/2011 5:43:00 PM

0

On Jan 22, 12:03 pm, smball...@aol.comnospam wrote:
> On Sat, 22 Jan 2011 08:18:30 -0500, "serveyerself"
>
> <serveyers...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >Probably dropped due to poor ratings. The Factor was killing him in that
> >slot.
>
> But to the extent that left-wing commentators could obtain ratings in
> a country where less than 20% share their views, Olbermann's ratings
> were actually very good relatively speaking.  
>
> While I found Olbermann to be among the most vitriolic and shallow of
> commentators on a cable news show and far less civil than anyone on
> Fox News, Olbermann's departure will only help the left appear less
> insane and less dishonest and less unfair to those in the middle.  And
> the middle is still where elections are won and lost.  
>
> Olbermann's departure could also elevate Rachel Maddow who is a far
> more informed and rational ultra-liberal commentator.  She's
> intellectually far more formidable than left-wing commentators such as
> Keith Olbermann and Bill Maher and can actually articulate arguments
> that don't easily collapse once scrutiny is applied.  
>
> So this is not a good day for those on the right as they also still
> need to win over those in the middle to win elections.  Obama's
> chances for re-election just shot up two-fold, and perhaps more so if
> it turns out that Comcast was responsible for pushing Olbermann out. A
> politically conservative leaning corporation pushing out an icon of
> the left will only make such left appear more sympathetic to those in
> the middle.  
>
> Again, it's those in the middle who decide elections.  On the other
> hand, so long as vitriolic leftists such as Bill Maher still keep
> their shows where they spew out their hate and contempt of anyone who
> has different political beliefs than they do, the damage to
> conservative political prospects will probably not be as great as it
> could be.

What I find funny with this is I could replace "left" with "right",
"Olberman/Maher/Maddow" with "Hannity/Limbaugh/O'Reilly/Beck" and
"Liberal" with "Conservative" and your spin would be completely
accurate.

Which is why I find political discussions with those who have extreme
right or left beliefs very tiresome.

William Longyard

1/22/2011 6:14:00 PM

0


"Steve Mitchum" <stevemitchum666@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f223a2a5-d3d3-473b-a19c-39470a229ea6@u18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> His ratings were more than healthy. It's about the Comcast deal, and
> internal politics.

A simple look at the ratings show you are not correct. O'Reilly
consistently blows Olbermann out of the water with 2.9 million viewers
nightly versus Olbermann's 1.1 million. Olbermann was also plunging in the
important advertizing demographic for 25-54 year olds. He was down to
250,000 from a high of 450,000. Again, O'Reilly consistently bests him by
nearly 3 to 1. I don't know why shareholders allowed MSNBC to continue to
keep his show, when it is such an obvious ratings bomb.

Bill Longyard


Evil Rev Returns

1/22/2011 7:45:00 PM

0

Good riddance !!!!

The only one on the right who is even close to the venom, intolerance
& hatred routinely displayed on KO's hatefests is Michael Savage (who
I find equally intolerable). To my knowledge, savage does not have a
TV presence & I don't ever recall seeing him on TV.


ER
5th Estate, USA

Joe

1/22/2011 7:46:00 PM

0

On Jan 22, 1:13 pm, "William Longyard" <longy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> A simple look at the ratings show you are not correct.  O'Reilly
> consistently blows Olbermann out of the water with 2.9 million viewers
> nightly versus Olbermann's 1.1 million.  Olbermann was also plunging in the
> important advertizing demographic for 25-54 year olds.  He was down to
> 250,000 from a high of 450,000.  Again, O'Reilly consistently bests him by
> nearly 3 to 1.  I don't know why shareholders allowed MSNBC to continue to
> keep his show, when it is such an obvious ratings bomb.
>
> Bill Longyard

Comcast, as a corporation, is very conservative and does not tolerate
failure in any way, shape or form.
Poor ratings...you're gone. End of story.

Then again, you got the Phila 76'ers. One wonders how Comcast misses
the boat on that :-)

gully

1/22/2011 8:37:00 PM

0

On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "William Longyard" <longy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> "Steve Mitchum" <stevemitchum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f223a2a5-d3d3-473b-a19c-39470a229ea6@u18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > His ratings were more than healthy. It's about the Comcast deal, and
> > internal politics.
>
> A simple look at the ratings show you are not correct.  O'Reilly
> consistently blows Olbermann out of the water with 2.9 million viewers
> nightly versus Olbermann's 1.1 million.  Olbermann was also plunging in the
> important advertizing demographic for 25-54 year olds.  He was down to
> 250,000 from a high of 450,000.  Again, O'Reilly consistently bests him by
> nearly 3 to 1.  I don't know why shareholders allowed MSNBC to continue to
> keep his show, when it is such an obvious ratings bomb.
>
> Bill Longyard

Which shows why you don't run tv networks. The show was a moneymaker,
pure and simple. That is the point of business, to make money.
I get such a large kick out of the perpetual bleating about ratings.
These numbers are miniscule compared to the number of people watching
television at the time, even the "winners".
And, people always act like this has some significance Of the tiny
audience watching these shows, more, even most, probably, prefer
O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc. What does this prove?
Would you argue that the top-selling music is the best, the top
selling fiction book will be remembered as great literature, or that
separate but equal is a fair way to run schools? Majority or plurality
positions all.
BTW, the top five songs on iTunes, as I type this, are from Bruno
Mars, Britney Spears, Pitbull, Katy Perry, and Wiz Khalifa. Not a
doubt in my mind those among are the best songs ever released, and
will be listened to as long as, say, the Beatles (whom they are
outselling). Katy Perry has five times as many top 200 songs than the
Beatles, so she must be five times as good.
Ratings are lowest common denominator, which is why Bill spouts them.

William Longyard

1/22/2011 9:42:00 PM

0

Once again Gully uses sophistry to argue a point that he has already lost.
"Making money" is NOT what the shareholders want MSNBC to do. What the
shareholders want MSNBC to do is MAXIMIZE profits. They certainly weren't
doing that with Olbermann who was being bested by O'Reilly with 250% more
viewers. If Olbermann makes MSNBC (for example) $10 million profit, than
who much could someone in the same timeslot make if they were splitting the
audience with O'Reilly, and had nearly DOUBLE the viewers?

Bill Longyard


"gully" <gulliverfoyle2@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2967f734-921e-4a1d-b68f-8e1a150508e5@z26g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 22, 12:13 pm, "William Longyard" <longy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
> "Steve Mitchum" <stevemitchum...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:f223a2a5-d3d3-473b-a19c-39470a229ea6@u18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > His ratings were more than healthy. It's about the Comcast deal, and
> > internal politics.
>
> A simple look at the ratings show you are not correct. O'Reilly
> consistently blows Olbermann out of the water with 2.9 million viewers
> nightly versus Olbermann's 1.1 million. Olbermann was also plunging in the
> important advertizing demographic for 25-54 year olds. He was down to
> 250,000 from a high of 450,000. Again, O'Reilly consistently bests him by
> nearly 3 to 1. I don't know why shareholders allowed MSNBC to continue to
> keep his show, when it is such an obvious ratings bomb.
>
> Bill Longyard

Which shows why you don't run tv networks. The show was a moneymaker,
pure and simple. That is the point of business, to make money.
I get such a large kick out of the perpetual bleating about ratings.
These numbers are miniscule compared to the number of people watching
television at the time, even the "winners".
And, people always act like this has some significance Of the tiny
audience watching these shows, more, even most, probably, prefer
O'Reilly, Beck, Hannity, etc. What does this prove?
Would you argue that the top-selling music is the best, the top
selling fiction book will be remembered as great literature, or that
separate but equal is a fair way to run schools? Majority or plurality
positions all.
BTW, the top five songs on iTunes, as I type this, are from Bruno
Mars, Britney Spears, Pitbull, Katy Perry, and Wiz Khalifa. Not a
doubt in my mind those among are the best songs ever released, and
will be listened to as long as, say, the Beatles (whom they are
outselling). Katy Perry has five times as many top 200 songs than the
Beatles, so she must be five times as good.
Ratings are lowest common denominator, which is why Bill spouts them.


Xref

1/22/2011 10:11:00 PM

0

On 1/22/11 3:42 PM, William Longyard wrote:
> Once again Gully uses sophistry to argue a point that he has already lost.
> "Making money" is NOT what the shareholders want MSNBC to do. What the
> shareholders want MSNBC to do is MAXIMIZE profits. They certainly weren't
> doing that with Olbermann who was being bested by O'Reilly with 250% more
> viewers.

Not surprisingly, you're expressing certainty about something you can't
possibly know. The size of the audience isn't the only factor that
determines profitability. Demographics--age and location--also matter.

But even assuming that O'Reilly generated magnitudes more profits for
Fox than Olbermann did for MSNBC, that doesn't mean that Olbermann
wasn't the most profitable possible option for MSNBC in his time slot.

--
ez