Comments on: Castro Retires: A Revaluation of Fidelismo

By: Argonot

Argonot — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 19:59:08 +0000

Dayan, I agree with you that Fidel Castro is to be admired for liberating Cuba from the corrupt dictator Fulgenico Batisto and getting rid off American influenced Prostitutuion,gambling casinos and the MAFIA.Most of all he will be remembered for standing up to America.

It is an insult to Fidel Castro for you to make any comparison with Sri Lanka or with our past and current leaders.

Your Marxist/Leninist theory was ok at a particular point in the world history. However, in the long run all the countries which embraced Marxisam has failed.

Answer Me why did the Soviet Union disintrgrate!!
Why are so Many former Soviet union block countries are queuing to join European Union!!
Why are so many cubans have either left or want to leave the country!!

Communist experiment has not worked and will not work in the modern context. Even China is fast moving towards Free Market economy.

In conclusion, I suggest the only comparison between Cuba and Sri Lanka is that both are failed states and have missed many opportunities to uplift the living standard of its people.
Also in both countries many citizens have left or are attempting to leave the country. The only thing Sri Lanka can boast about is producing house maids to send to Middle East to earn Foreign Exchange.

By: Sri

Sri — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 06:15:40 +0000

Dayan,
Your article is superb. but you had compromised with some subsequent stupid responses to the comments -the same argumentative mania!

Castro is not God, so are Marx, Engels ,Lenin and Stalin. But you Marxist always have hairsplitting arguments on every action and every word spoken by them even in different contexts, sometimes contradicting their own previous opinions and treat them as gospel truth.

By the bye, Dayan are you still a Marxist? or were you ever a Marxist?

These adherences are not even dogmatic, but like blind religious discourse faithfully interpreted by all Marxist and their fellow travelers including you.

History will judge Castro as a great human being, a revolutionary, a rebel and a doer unlike many Marxist who were simply only argumentative, idle theoreticians.

Castro was not a Marxist before Cuban Revolution and was not supported by Soviet Union until Castro captured power and sought the help of this super power- the Soviet Union against USA, not in the great tradition of socialist or nonaligned movement, but as a tactical move. To play one against the other.
.
Please correct me if I am wrong!

The hostility with the Americans and the alliance with Russians lasted almost 50 years. During this long period, .Castro continued his revolutionary assistance,not as astoge of Soviet Union,but in the great revolutionary traditionj, to the anti colonial and national liberation movements not only in Latin America but internationally including Africa, not merely vocal but by action with deployment of troops.

Real solidarity with the oppressed people!.

There could not be any doubt where his sympathies would have been in Sri Lanka.

By: ilaya seran senguttuven

ilaya seran senguttuven — Sat, 23 Feb 2008 04:28:58 +0000

I have conceded the good Fidel did to the country he loved, the dignity he restored to his Motherland. The educated Lawyer that he was coming from a reasonably wealth family he could have worked towards a comfortable and successful life in Cuba. But for some,
likeSWRD, Keneuman, my friend Kumar Ponnambalam and others, personal wealth and comfort come well below that of love of country and people. Fidel failed to lift the economic level of his country despite a long innings of total political power. He did not allow democratic socialism to develop. He jailed many of his comrades whom he thought was a threat to his political leadership. He misread that he and only he will decide what is good for Cuba and the Cubans.
In his congenital rage against the USA he schemed with Khruschev’s Russia to turn Cuba into a nuclear arsenal to be turned against the USA.He brought the world almost to an end in 1962. I had my own thoughts of the CIA and some Americans in the Establishment. But there is no doubt the vast majority of Americans are good, innocent people whose wealth (n food production, scientific invention) they share with the world. Their excellent educational instituitions are open to all our children (including you, I think) Therefore, this is the darker side of our common hero Fidel. He is to Latin America what Robert Mugabe is to Africa. We all supported Mugabe when he fought against Ian Smith but we never expected him to become the dictatorial brute he has become reducing that wonderful country that was known as the Bread Basket of Africa to that level where 3 million have illegally crossed to S.Africa merely to get a meal a day. Some who begin as socialists end up as awful dictatorial morons. Castro was not as bad and unacceptable to his people as Mugabe. But together with Castro’s large reservoir of good to Cuba and the Cubans, he too was not free from that condition which the Bible refers to as “weakness of the flesh” Let me again reiterate in spite
of faults Fidel Castro will be remembered in history
as a romantic, fearless fighter for justice and fair play for his people against great odds. If allowed to themselves the Cubans and Americans will build a new and more friendlier relationship
across ideological and polical considerations.

By: villa anand

villa anand — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:56:45 +0000

Dayan Dayan on our comment 5;

Those who admire Fidel, admirer him for his dedication to his ideology, resisting US influence in South America, standing up for Cuba’s sovereignty, his ability to survive for so long as the leader of a country in the backyard of the most brutal and strongest nation in the world and defying openly. That does not mean we need to look for what he has approved, not approved, spoken sympathetically, or not. Your reference to Fidel is like religious fundamentalists quoting few scientific discoveries in isolation and claiming their faith is in acceptance with science.

We know that even though Cuba and Sri Lanka have had warm, excellent relations, Yankee Dicky” JR was not Fidel’s buddy. Was Fidel sympathetic towards Mrs. Banda when JR took away her civic rights? What was his position on JVP uprising and the government’s brutal crackdown? He may have an opinion, but never stated it. Having a good relationship with a country does not mean you endorse every thing they do. Cuba had excellent relationship with Soviet Union, but did Castro accept the revisionist policies of that country? No.

Every situation and every circumstance is unique. Fidel being an admirer of Nehru and Indira Gandhi would have endorsed the split of Bangladesh even though it affected the unity and territorial integrity of then Pakistan. It is no secret India under India provided training for Tamil militants. You yourself admitted that you took up political militancy; did you seek Castro’s approval? You might have changed your position by believing in Indo- Lanka accord and 13th amendment. But most Tamil’s don’t.

Even though Cuba is poor, the Cubans are proud and united as one nation, because there is no racial discrimination. The Spanish descendents are not treated differently from the African descendents. The constitution does not refer to and give prominence to any language or religion. If Sri Lanka is governed by Fidel Castro, Tamils will be happy but Mahinda brothers and probably you will be the ones getting on to a boat and leave the island like the Miami Cubans.

Please do not insult Fidel Castro by comparing him to the clowns of Sri Lanka and make us believe that he will endorse their buffoonery

By: Dayan Jayatilleka

Dayan Jayatilleka — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:53:45 +0000

Dear readers ,

I thought i’d share with you the following assesment of Fidel Castro, by the biographer of Che Guevara, Jon Lee Anderson, published today ( Friday, Feb 22) in the Guardian, UK:

“…Fidel has always seen himself, his countrymen and Cuba itself as engaged in a heroic struggle – for socialism, against imperialism, in defence of national sovereignty and so on …

Long before he became a socialist, Fidel was an ardent Cuban nationalist who conceived of his revolution as the restorative antidote to his country’s history of Yankee midwifery. Later, he came to believe that he and his revolution had finally secured full Cuban national sovereignty – or, as he often referred to it, its “dignity” – by standing up to the United States and by surviving.

In a conversation we had in 2006, Ricardo Alarcon, the president of Cuba’s National Assembly, suggested that Cuba’s independence was the most important achievement of Fidel and his revolution…”

By: Dayan Jayatilleka

Dayan Jayatilleka — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 14:46:36 +0000

Dear Diplomut,

I do wish the international community here at the UN in Geneva shared your view of my unsuitabilty, so i could have a little free time and my wife and i could enjoy this place more! Right now i have elected unanimously or by consensus, (1) a Vice presdent of the Human rights Council, (2) the chairman of he governing Body of the ILO, (3) the co-ordinator on general disarmament in the Conference on Disarmament (4) The Chairman of the Intergovernmental working group on the implementation of the Durban declaration and programe of action ( i.e. the UN anti-racism conference) and (5) a jury member of the international Time for peace Film and Music awards. So, Diplomut, can’t you please, please do me a big personal favour and convince them of your view that i am “are over and over again exposing your unsuitability to hold office in exposing yourself as a confused man living in the past”?

By: Sinhalese

Sinhalese — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 11:15:25 +0000

Parabhakaran also a Despot worse or mre like Polpot. Diplomut may be does not know that lot of Sinhala youth in 80 to 90s supported Tamil Liberation struggle. It all changed when Prabha and his gang massacred Progressive Tamil forces. Only this Madbahu with nonsense theory supports LTTE and Prabha now. We don’t. Mahind and any one else lesser Devil compare to Prabhakaran. (That does not mean I support murder and mayham by Pilliyan karuna gang or some Army gangs murder of 5 Trinco Students etc). Lenin supported Polish Independence as you Tamils does not know. But Polish Lib Struggle did not have suicide bombers and child killers. You can say now Army also kills children by bombing. We never support that. Specialy areail bombing. But Prabhas method of fighing attracts own destruction of Tamils. Tamils are still (specialy in west) in cuckoo land in reference to Ealm and Prabha.

By: ilaya seran senguttuven

ilaya seran senguttuven — Fri, 22 Feb 2008 08:42:00 +0000

Dayan (5) …. In as much as Cuba was not known to have openly expressed sympathy with Tamil Liberation cause, it is equally true Fidel/ the Cuban govt never spoke against the Tamil struggle either. Yet, given Fidal’ s known and established inclination towards liberation struggles globall, it is not difficult to speculate where his sympathies would have been. It certainly would have been unequivocally in the same direction when you were yourself part of the Tamil struggle – with those fine lads of the EPRF headed by the superb Padmanabha – brutally killed by monsters. I don’t think JRJ, very much wanting to be the head of NAM at that time, would have done anything to gain Fidel’s wrath. The JRJ-Castro relationship, therefore, was very good to the extent where Castro sent lovely Havana Cigars to JRJ regularly. And, when that great journalist of this country – never to be enticed or seduced by high office or perks – the late Mervyn de Silva – called on JRJ regularly, he was given these delicious Cigars, which many a time Mervyn shared with me and close friends. Mervyn, being what Mervyn, was – in spite of the courtesies sorroundng these regular visits to
“Breamar” – often wrote critically of JRJ’s politics. That is the culture and history of these fine men who were journalists whose names are referred to in reverential terms. These are known more to you than anyone else – with the natural advantage that was yours in the equation…. That phsyco Slobodan Milosevic made the miscalculation of under-estimating the Kosovan struggle because the latter were much smaller in number than the Serbs – a serious error our own leaders are not free from. Milosovic let lose his animals on innocent Kosovan girls and women – who duly raped them mercilessly – all because they were different from the Serb Christians. They were predominantly Albanian Muslims. And, now after Timor leste we have the UDI of Kosovo despite powerful protests from Russia, China and Spain – who are all themselves facing serious threats of breakaway regions themselves…In the position you are in you will do well to familiarise your current employer and Brothers Inc and make them wiser with the ways of the world – which is so far removed from that those sorrounding Mahinda R have painted for him…In your present re-incarnation you refer to Premadasa as “patriotic and populist” and club him with Mahinda..Hmmm. Mahinda may not have agreed with this description when Premadasa was boss.
In fact, we certainly felt bad when crackers were lit when
Premadasa – “the patriotic and populist” man you refer to – died because it was repugnant to the culture and nature of our
people. Many then did not agree with us and went on to lighting these crackers – Mahinda R was’nt too far from the scene …But such indeed are the ways of this cruel and uncaring world, eh?”..

By: Diplomut

Diplomut — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 19:45:35 +0000

Milosovic, Castro and the rest were oppressors of their peoples, resulting in mass exodus of their populations. Yankee Dicky stood by and watched Tamils being burnt in 83 and presided over another exodus.

You are over and over again exposing your unsuitability to hold office in exposing yourself as a confused man living in the past.

Your hero’s are marx, lenin, Castro and other despots who brought so much suffering on their own peoples.

It is people like you who are dragging our country into oblivion. Do us all a favour and return back to your university where you can do your lenin, marx and castro thing, without causing damage to Sri Lanka.

By: Dayan Jayatilleka

Dayan Jayatilleka — Thu, 21 Feb 2008 12:29:27 +0000

Admirers of Fidel Castro and Cuba who are simultaneously hostile to the Sri Lankan state have this question to ask themselves: how is it that Cuba and Sri Lanka have had warm, excellent relations throughout the decades, including under “Yankee Dicky” JR Jayewardene, while Cuba has never once spoken sympathetically of the Tamil separatist cause or struggle?

As for those who see a contradiction betwen my support of Fidel Castro and the Sri Lankan state specially under patriotic populist leaders such as Premadasa and Mahinda, all I can do is urge them to read Fidel’s views on the breakup of Yugoslavia, and his disclosure that he (unsucessfully) urged Milosevic to ” resist! resist! resist” the NATO troops in Kosovo. Cuba and Sri Lanka, two small islands, stand for the principles of the Non-Aligned Movement. Castro has always stood with utmost firmness and militancy for the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of states, and against any Western interference ..which he demonstrated by sending troops to fight in the Ogaden, against the Somali attempt to break up Ethiopia.