This is an issue I should analyze in depth. Ours is a cultivated and well informed people, a reasonable people with a long-standing experience accumulated throughout the Revolution when on more than once occasion we have had to confront the others’ maneuvers and dirty tricks requiring from us to reflect and be well informed.

I should like to provide some background information which I think is important for a clearer understanding of the announcement made on January 5 that must be put in the right context.

First of all, it must be said that the US blockade which more than a blockade is a vicious economic, commercial and financial war waged at all levels against our country is being increasingly rejected by many people. It faces international opposition and a refusal by many governments expressed in different ways: through General Assembly resolutions that year by year show the US ever growing isolation and many more expressions proving that Cuba’s international position is very sound, increasingly sound. Cuba is a respected country which sustains normal and cordial relations with the overwhelming majority of nations in the world.

Not only has international opposition to this US policy grown but also recently --and this is the issue I would like to draw your attention to-- opposition and criticism of this policy is gaining ground by the day even within the very United States.

I will very quickly go through a sort of chronology of the year 1998. On January 13 of that year, the inception of a broad coalition of US personalities and groups backed by the Chamber of Commerce was made public under the name of Americans for Humanitarian Trade with Cuba, in other words, Americans who favor a humanitarian trade with Cuba. This group has been carrying out educational activities disseminating information on Cuba through chapters in practically every state of the Union. Likewise, it has supported a number of legislative initiatives aimed at eliminating restrictions and lifting the blockade in areas related to food and medicine.

Or course, the problems posed by the blockade could not be resolved even if they succeeded in its removal from these two areas because, given the conditions of the economic war imposed on Cuba, the exclusion of these two items from the blockade would not really be a solution, it would not even be significant in economic terms, nor would it make the blockade less callous and inhuman.

The fact is that the blockade denies us the resources needed for development and prevents normal trade with the United States while it attempts to sabotage normal trade relations with the rest of the world.

Anyway, these are people moved by generous and noble ideals who do not share their government’s views and strategy against us. This group has been and continues to be very active. Throughout the past year it organized a number of very important activities which I will refer to later on.

Last year, on January --as we all recall-- His Holiness Pope John Paul II visited our country. On that occasion, thousands of journalists traveled to Cuba as well as numerous personalities from different parts of the world and the United States in particular, including some US Congressmen like Charles Rangel and others from the state of Massachusetts, and even members of US Senator Jesse Helms’ staff.

As every one remembers, during his visit the Pope made a significant statement expressing that the blockade is unfair and ethically unacceptable. Obviously, this visit contributed to providing the world with a view of Cuba's reality as a civilized country, a united country which continues to advance in its struggle despite all difficulties. That image also reached the United States --many parts of the United States-- regardless of the fact that, as many will recall, the Pope's visit coincided with certain events in the United States that I will not mention here but which distracted part of the attention.

On March 20, 1998, a number of measures were announced by the US Administration --more or less like this time-- under the pretense of easing blockade restrictions. Actually, none of these measures were implemented --as I will explain later-- nor was this truly a significant modification of the blockade.

Basically, the measures included the resumption of direct flights between Miami and Havana so that people with roots in Cuba could visit their relatives on the island if they so wished. Actually, when the US prohibited such direct flights it did not prevent these people from continuing to visit Cuba. They had to travel through other countries but the flow was never really stopped, so the Administration was simply going back to what existed before in the face of something it was not able to remove since the visits had continued.

Once again they authorized Cuban Americans in the United States to send remittances to their relatives in Cuba and the same applied to the possibility of traveling to the island. Actually, they prohibited these remittances for some time until March 20 but they never ceased to enter the country because the Cuban Americans always found ways to help their relatives.

Everyone in Cuba knows that both the visits and the remittances continued throughout the period when President Clinton decided to suspend them.

At that moment, in addition to these two measures they announced their intention "to speed up the process for granting licenses for the sale of medicines to Cuba". This is a very important point which deserves to be elaborated extensively later on.

As for now, I will go on to categorically state without the shadow of a doubt that as of March 20 until today this country has not been able to purchase a single aspirin. Ten months have passed.

Of course, for several decades before March 20 we had neither been able to purchase a thing. But that was the date set for "speeding up" the process for granting licenses for the sale of medicines. Since then, Cuba has been making arrangements for the purchase of products from a number of US pharmaceutical companies but every time, without exception, either we did not receive a response or when we did it was a refusal, so in the past 10 months that "speed-up" has not been felt. Regarding the fourth item, it read more or less as follows: "We shall work together with Congress in order to achieve the transfer of food to Cuba".

The term "transfer" was used because at that moment, as all Cubans will surely recall, a bill had been introduced at the House of Representatives by Congressmen Charles Rangel and Esteban Torres and a similar one at the Senate by Senator Christopher Dodd. Both bills proposed lifting the blockade on medicines and food, that is, to authorize trade in theses two items.

On the other hand, the annexionist Miami mafia and Senator Helms --none other than Senator Helms himself-- to deceitfully confront the repudiation of this inhumane blockade as especially underscored by the Pope's presence in Cuba said that they would propose "donations" of food to Cuba.

By the way, according to Senator Helms’ proposal such "donations" would be accompanied by funds to organize counterrevolutionary subversion within our country and the food as a means for bribery and internally undermining the country. Obviously, such a proposal was totally unacceptable to Cuba. This country does not accept blackmail nor handouts least of all from a hostile and insensitive person like Senator Helms, one of the designers of a policy aimed at the annihilation of our people.

President Clinton had these two options: on the one hand, Mr. Helm's rude maneuver and on the other, a proper and well intended proposal by Congressmen Dodd, Torres and Rangel. That is why the term transfer was used: the idea being to work with Congress because there were two versions there and to produce hypothetically implying the possibility of certain development in this area.

I do not want to proceed without stating the following: nothing was established on March 20, just like this time no measures have been adopted. On March 20, 1998 as on January 5, 1999 the Administration announced and described a policy focused on administrative regulations to be issued later on.

It must be said that the policy was announced on March 20; however, the specific rules and regulations on the organization of direct flights and remittances --the other terms were left pending, in limbo where they had always been from the beginning because they had no intentions whatsoever to sell food or medicines to Cuba-- the procedures for direct flights and remittances and other regulations were not announced until May 13, consequently, the first direct flight to Cuba did not materialize until July.

It goes as follows: bureaucrats meet and draft an interpretation of the Presidential guidelines. Next come the procedures and whether or not to approve the request filed by an airline to fly directly to Cuba or a financial entity for sending remittances, etc. It was for these reasons that the first direct flight did not take place until July.

As for remittances, when I proceed with the chronology you will see that there are still people awaiting permission to travel to Cuba to set up a mechanism for sending remittances. But that doesn’t matter because the money continues to flow.

I would like to say, though, in connection with remittances by Cuban Americans to Cuba that this is a universal phenomenon. Throughout history emigrants have always tried to help relatives back in their countries. Tens of billions of dollars leave the United States for Latin America thus becoming the main source of income for many countries in the region. They also leave for Europe, Africa and Asia because there are in the United States many emigrants from different parts of the world. The only emigrants, absolutely the only ones, who are subjected to control, who are told how much they can send are those of Cuban origin. They are absolutely discriminated against.

In this respect, the Federal Government does not interfere with what a national from another country does about his relatives in the country he comes from. This is entirely a private matter. The Cuban Americans are the only ones discriminated. For a time, they were also prevented from sending remittances and now they are allowed to send only a small amount under very strict control measures and regulations. This was restored on March 20, 1998. Later on I will refer to the present status resulting from the much-trumpeted announcement of January 5, 1999.

On March 31, 1998, a mobilization at the US Congress was promoted by the group initially mentioned. Many people went to the Washington Capitol to speak with the congressmen and demonstrate against the blockade and in favor of the initiative to remove sanctions on food and medicines.

Just to give you an idea of the dimensions of such movement I will say that on that occasion a document was presented in Washington with the signature of 20,000 people of Cuban origin living in Florida. In other words, 20,000 Cuban Americans signed --and this is duly registered-- a document demanding the end of the blockade policy against Cuba.

If we move on to April we will see that another important event occurred. On April 22, 1998, the Human Rights Commission in Geneva rejected the US defamatory proposal which is part of the their systematic campaign against Cuba to try to condemn our country for alleged human rights violations. This is proof of the growth and consolidation of world respect for Cuba and of the United States isolation.

On May 6, another interesting happening: a Pentagon report was made public urged by some anti-Cuban legislators as part of the efforts to create a hostile climate that would justify the virulence against Cuba. Well, the Pentagon produced a report stating the elemental which is a surprise to no one, namely, that Cuba poses no threat to the national security of the United States. This is one of the arguments brandished by Helms and the Cuban mafiosi as the basis of their policy against us. This was on May 6, 1998.

On May 7, 1998, the head of the Cuban Bureau at the State Department explained to a congressional sub-committee the implementation of Article 109 of the Helms-Burton Act which provides for material, financial and economic assistance to be delivered to the traitors they try to organize within Cuba who they intend to sustain as small counterrevolutionary groups. It was said there that 2 million dollars had been spent on this in the past year –that is, until the moment it was said-- and that they were already working on an additional 1,800,000 dollars grant. The money would be handed over to the International Development Agency which would then transfer it to US non-governmental organizations for financing programs against Cuba abroad or send it to their sponsors in Cuba.

As I said before, the regulations for traveling and sending remittances were finally announced on the 14th of that month but then something unusual happened. In his announcement on March 20, President Clinton had in fact said that the purpose was to restore direct travel between the two countries in order to facilitate that means of communications between Cubans, etc.

This time, however, there were aspects in the regulations which had not been there before, such as greater travelers control and greater efforts to enforce the limitations imposed on this sector of immigrants and only on this sector, the Cubans. Also a more rigorous control of what they carry and the number of times they travel because Cubans or people of Cuban origin are the only people in the United States who can only travel to their country of origin once in a 12 months period and this for reason of humanitarian emergency. According to these regulations they must have a very sick relative or some other dramatic personal situation.

Perhaps before someone might have come to Cuba without such a very powerful reason, however, after March 20 or more exactly after May 13 there begin to be cases of people searched at the airport, limitations, etc.

Take for example the case of Mrs. Victoria Hernandez who received a notification on September 2, 1998 --and this is not ancient history, this is now-- from the US Treasury Department, here is the letter (shows the letter) informing that a number of her things had been confiscated including specifically the money she had intended to bring on her trip to Cuba. They even opened an office in Miami to guarantee the enforcement of these measures. This is public matter, it is not a secret.

I have here the text (shows the document) of an interview by Michael Kozak, head of the United States Interest Section in Havana, to NBC Television. He explains, among other things, that a series of measures have been adopted to punish those who violate these regulations. He says: "During the past three years there have been nine cases of criminal indictment and two persons were sentenced for violating the travel regulations". He said this on US television, that is, he was warning that this is no game and no joke, that "eased restrictions" can lead to jail or the imposition of a fine.

As I said before, the first flight did not take place until July. June 10. Dr.Díaz Vallina, Deputy Minister of Public Health, had a meeting here in Havana with that same US diplomat as part of our efforts to find out whether the bureaucrats who had drafted the May regulations were actually going to allow the sale of medications after President Clinton's announcement that the procedures for the sales of medications would be "speeded up". Three months had passed and no reply had been received, nor had we been able to purchase anything so they were having discussions to determine the real possibilities. They confirmed what we already knew: that it was actually impossible to purchase anything.

However, we are not discouraged although since then and, I repeat it, after 10 months of continuous efforts the results are still the same: absolutely no sale of medications or anything else to Cuba.

On July 2, 1998 it was announced that requests had been denied for indirect flights to Cuba by a number of US airlines that wanted to continue flying like they had been doing until then.

Remember that the possibility for direct flights was announced on March, the regulations explained on May and yet on July no one had flown directly to Cuba. On July, the license of those companies flying through indirect routes, since no one could fly directly, were also canceled. As a result, there would not be any more flights between Miami and other neighboring destinations and from there to Cuba, there would only be a direct flight which, in fact, was restored later on.

On July 15, Senator Christopher Dodd benefited from a debate in the Senate to introduce an amendment reflecting the same intent as his bill. If passed, Cuba would not have been among the countries subjected to a medical and food blockade. However, the amendment was rejected, it did not pass the Senate.

On July 21, something very interesting occurred. We are talking of the "speed up" process to sell medicines. On July 21, the Treasury Department refused PWN, a US company, permission to come to our country to take part in an exhibit of pharmaceuticals. Since they had said that they were going to expedite the sale of medicines, a company decided to take what is usually the first step to sell a product, that is, to advertise it; it may be of interest to a client, or not. They wanted to take part in the exhibit in Havana and so they requested the Treasury Department for permission to come and show their products. They wanted to attend the fair and see if anyone might be interested before asking for a license which the government would "speedily" grant.

I have here the letters exchanged between one of our public health enterprises and that company, all the details including the space they would have in EXPOCUBA, etc. However, on July 21, the Treasury Department replied that they could not travel to Cuba, not even to exhibit their products.

On August 3, 1998 the Secretary of State sent a letter to Senator Helms where she explained that the understanding between the United States Government and the European Union achieved their country's objective to internationalize the blockade. Obviously, that lady's capricious and arbitrary interpretation created an embarrassing situation for the European countries that do not accept the blockade and do not yield to it and who had reached an understanding with the United States, something we have discussed many times before.

In short, what did it consist of? Europe would not press its claim before the World Trade Organization where it had previously lodged a formal protest and asked for a panel to judge the violation of international law and of the WTO norms by the Helms-Burton Act and in return it demanded the United States to modify the aspect of the law pertaining to sanctions against European businessmen investing in Cuba denying visas to travel to the United States. That was in essence the barter.

However, that lady sent her interpretation to Mr. Helms, Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, in a written notification which was actually insulting to their European allies and friends who had not adhered to the blockade policy.

Two days later, on August 5, a completely new event: Six US businessmen were detained in New York City for smoking Cuban cigars, not for importing or distributing them but simply because it was discovered that somewhere in New York there were people who, one way or another, had obtained the cigars and were arrested for the crime of smoking.

I am aware of the on-going campaign against smoking and that this is highly recommendable for health, however it seems somewhat disproportionate to arrest anyone for smoking a cigar from a certain country. I understand that they were later released and charges were dropped.

On September 13, something very revealing occurred. The Treasury Department denied Alamar Associates a license for a businessmen trip to Cuba it was organizing, consequently they were not able to travel. These businessmen were planning to spend a day in Cancun and then travel to Cuba, as had been the case on March 6, 1998.

Two weeks before the much-trumpeted "easing of restrictions" Alamar Associates had organized a trip of US businessmen who first met in Cancun and then traveled to Havana. I met with them precisely on March 6, here in Havana.

A few days later, the President announced the "relaxation" of the blockade. Put yourselves in the place of Alamar Associates. You would have thought: "Good, I’m going to organize another meeting! Now it's going to be easier than before." Imagine their reaction when they were told : "No, no, no, no. We are now "easing restrictions" and you cannot do what you could do before.

In fact, what was possible before the measures adopted on March 20, 1998, was no longer possible in September.

On September 28, Western Union was informed that it would not receive a license for one of its executives to travel to Havana to organize the famous remittances which had supposedly been authorized again on March. I draw your attention to the difference between rhetoric and facts which leads us to conclude that the policy regulations announced by President Clinton on March 20, 1998 to "ease restrictions" really meant the opposite. Still, we persisted in trying to obtain the medications and the famous licenses to purchase them.

On September 29, Fernando Remirez, head of our Diplomatic Mission in Washington, met with State Department officials. On October 1, 1998, Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, director of the North America Department in Havana met, once more, with officials from the same Department to discuss, to explain, to tell them --because we always speak the truth, we do not lie-- that they talked endlessly about the alleged sales of medicines to Cuba, yet we were not able to bring in an Aspirin.

Not only have we made all efforts but we have done so unobtrusively. I think this is the first time we speak about this. I’m giving information on Diaz Vallina's meeting with Kozak and on our officials' meetings with the State Department because it shows our interest to determine whether they would actually permit us to buy some of those products.

Something more important still occurred on September 30. On that day a letter was made public by Lawrence Eagleberguer, former Secretary of State of the United States of America, endorsed by Henry Kissinger, also a former US Secretary of State, and two other former Secretaries of State --four in all, all Republicans, all worked in that capacity under Republican Administrations-- and other prominent personalities in this area, moderate and more or less conservative republicans, asking the President to set up a bipartisan Commission, that is, with people from both Parties, to review the policy towards Cuba.

They were not asking, as were Dodd and the others I mentioned, for the lifting of the blockade, not even its partial lifting. They were simply asking for a reassessment, a review of US policy. Of course, in that letter they recalled that the policy was almost 40 years old and it had not served the purposes that inspired its inception, namely, to suffocate and destroy us. The blockade is hurting and it is a crime but we are here and will continue to be here. According to the letter, that policy invites international rejection, both at the United Nations and elsewhere. Then, they proposed what anyone with a minimum of brains would thought after 40 years doing something that bears no results: to review, examine, analyze that policy.

Twenty four US Senators, most of them Republicans, adhered to Kissinger's and Eagleberguer's letter and endorsed a petition to President Clinton for the establishment of a bipartisan commission.

Then on October certain activities by the International Development Agency were disclosed. I had previously explained the testimony of a State Department official on the money they were giving to certain organizations in the United States to funnel it to the counterrevolution in Cuba. Well, an explanation was offered there on 10 on-going or future projects amounting to 2.75 million dollars and 3 more millions for the following fiscal year, this current year.

On October 14, for the seventh consecutive time the UN General Assembly passed a resolution condemning the US economic, commercial and financial blockade against Cuba by 157 votes in favor and only 2 against. You don't need to be the President of a country or a senator to understand that the vote stands for an overwhelming majority which for the seventh time they has agreed that this man is violating international law, that his policy is inadmissible and that it must be changed.

The following week, on October 21, following secret negotiations by a small group of officials and legislators, the US Congress finally approved and the President signed the Budget Act for the current fiscal year, heedless of the United Nations Resolution. By the way, they did not include in the budget the money owed to the United Nations which they are under obligation to pay as do the rest of the member states of said organization. They did not look into this issue but they did introduce in the Budget Act twelve amendments related to Cuba which tighten and expand the blockade.

I’m not going explain all 12. One of them directly undermines the famous understanding with the European Union that we have discussed before as it provides that the United States will not only continue to deny visas to businessmen investing in Cuba but that the administration will report to Congress about the enforcement of Title IV of the Act which they had agreed with Europe to suspend. This means that the so-called Title IV of the Helms-Burton Act they had promised to amend or suspend not only did they not suspend it but even demanded that reports be regularly submitted on its application beginning thirty days after the passing of this Act. That is only one of them.

The other, which I have already explained, deals with the flagrant promotion of subversive actions to undermine Cuban society. I already referred to the millions of dollars they had announced before. That is where they introduced the significant legislative contribution to this budget, "at least" $2 million allocated to that purpose. They had had before $2 million or a certain amount as a ceiling, like in any budget. Now they are to spend "at least" that figure.

There is no need to insist much for you to understand that this is inadmissible, that it is simply intolerable, that this constitutes a violation of Cuban sovereignty and independence. Furthermore, it is outrageous, both legally and in terms of budgetary norms.

They introduced another modification in this Budget Act --one of the 12-- related to Cuba which I would also like to mention for its further impact: Section 211 of this Budget Act simply violates the most elemental principles of intellectual property, trademarks and patents universally accepted. According to it, US courts cannot recognize the right to a trademark or patent by a foreign company associated in any way with properties claimed as belonging to any US citizen.

By the way, this has to do with a current event --I will refer to later on because now I wish to proceed with the chronology-- on which one would have expected the State Department to make a statement but on this they did not say a word on January 5.

However, Section 211 is now the source of serious a feud. First, because it is an insult to Europe which agreed to an understanding in order to reduce or settle the contradictions raised by the Helms-Burton Act. Just today, there is an ongoing effort to unfairly and illegally punish a European company which is a partner in a Cuban joint venture for marketing of our rum.

It is a known fact that on October the Treasury Department opened an investigation against Global Exchange and Pastors for Peace for the organization of trips to Cuba without the relevant permission. "Easing restrictions" for travels and yet something which had not occurred in United States for a long time happens when two US organizations are subjected to an investigation for the sin of traveling to Cuba without a license. That same October an important group of Oklahoma businessmen were prevented from travel to Cuba. They had respectfully applied and the answer was no.

Perhaps the most interesting thing from the end of last year and the beginning of the new one was the increasing support for a certain movement developing in the United States for the establishment of a bipartisan commission to examine the policy. As limited as that, to simply review, meditate, reflect and analyze a policy that elicits such international repudiation and which has not borne any fruits.

This year many comments and information have been published on the famous bipartisan commission, announcing its inception for tomorrow or the following week, or perhaps before New Year’s eve or in the first days of January. What no one ever said is that it would not be created. That did not occur to anyone for a simple reason: the President is a member of the Democratic Party, right? The Republican Party is supposed to be his political adversary and the Republican Party holds the majority in both Houses; a large number of Republicans headed by four former Republican Secretaries of State, highly experienced and prestigious people widely recognized in the international relations circles, are the ones advancing this idea.

This is not a left-wing group nor a group of radicals. It is a moderate-conservative group. One could assume, as everyone else, that coming from a conservative opposition and backed by the most liberal elements who oppose the blockade or by those wishing to modify it in order to make it less inhumane, that the only thing the President had to say was: "All right, let’s establish the commission". Furthermore, the commission is not committed to lifting or even changing the blockade but only to review it.

But the ultra-right wing fascists, the annexionists and the extreme right know that any review of something so totally discredited, so lacking in arguments, rationale and morale can only lead to the conclusion that such policy must be abandoned.

Now we come to the month of January. Every one was expectant, then journalists were called to the State Department and possibly all the naïve people in the world thought: "Oh! They are going to explain about the Commission". But, there come the famous measures announced on January 5, 1999.

The first thing they announced was that the blockade would remain intact, unchanged. Secondly, they said there would be no Commission, that they were not even willing to review the policy. Here is how they put it: "The measures we are about to announce have nothing to do with the embargo", as they call it. "The embargo continues to be in effect and remains the same", nothing changes. Then the measures follow. I will only touch on them for now, only mention them.

They refer to the remittances and also to direct flights between the two countries. They refer to the possibility for US citizens traveling to Cuba and to the mail service between the two countries. They refer to food --which had been referred to in the previous "easing of restrictions"-- accompanied, of course, by measures related to radio and television broadcasts against Cuba and also to what they call "public diplomacy" meaning the use of resources in Latin America and Europe in defending their policy, an eroded policy, a morally offensive policy rejected worldwide, a policy which 157 countries have rejected. Consequently, they have to spend more money, more resources in persuading and moving others to accept it, one way or another.

Later, I shall return specifically to the measures.

On December 9, assistant Secretary Peter Romero attended an international conference in Miami where he said that Mrs. Albright was analyzing what to do with the bipartisan commission. I thought that, in any event, she would recommend to the President and the President would eventually decide. See that I’m using Mister Romero’s own terms. Mrs. Albright was in Miami for consultations in order to adopt a decision. Try guessing who she met with to discuss the issue: the three Cuban American Legislators. Some optimistic people thought: Surely, this is to explain to them that a Commission will be set up. But the opposite actually occurred.

On January 5, White House spokesman Mr. Lockhart met with the press for an announcement. First question: "Has there been a significant change in US policy towards Cuba?" Answer: "No, I don't believe there's been a significant change" --the announced measures sound ridiculous, simply a joke-- "I think we've built on some of the success announced by the President on March", nothing more. They continue to build on something whose features are as I pointed out to you. Mr. Lockhart issued this statement from the White House.

Three officials met at the State Department, Mr. Romero was one, a gentleman from the National Security Council and the third was the head of the Cuban Bureau at the State Department, to explain the same famous measures.

Question: "Mr. Romero, does this mean or has this anything to do with a more important long range policy?" Answer: "First of all, let me say that the measures that we've decided to undertake have nothing to do with the embargo, have nothing to do with the embargo. The embargo is the law of the land. It is in place and for the foreseeable future, unless Congress changes it, it will remain in place."

I say this because of the comments in the press. This policy is so absurd, so isolated and repudiated that many people think that if an announcement is going to be made it can only be to change it, to modify it, to advance in this direction. What nobody would ever think is that at this point in time they would call a press conference not to announce that the policy had been abandoned, or to accept the appeal by the international community, or at least to announce its modification in part as requested by a group of legislators, or a least to announce that it was going to be reviewed. It is hard to imagine calling the press to simply say that things will remain as they are, while trying to make people believe that a certain "ease of restrictions" had been attained. I will come back to this point later.

However, they call a press conference and announce a new "relaxation", which is what part of the media has reported, that is, more of the same from the March 20, 1998 announcement.

But how unusual, because one would think that any "relaxation", any policy change would be rejected by the Cuban American National Foundation. However, these people are very, very pleased simply because the Administration rejected the motion on the establishment of the Commission.

Can you imagine Mr. Helms supporting a "relaxation" of the blockade policy? Well, on the following day Mr. Rubin, the State Department spokesman who was not exactly dizzy from having to run around handing out information, was able to think before he was asked: "What does Senator Helms think?" Senator Helms, who is the Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. Mr. Rubin says something very interesting: "The Secretary spoke with him before and we kept in contact with his advisors before the decision was made. So, I don't think there's a problem in that area." It must be said that on May 14, 1998 when Mr. Helms submitted his cynical and contentious plan, he was proposing exactly the same measures announced on January 5, 1999. The current announcement actually looks like a Xerox copy, both in letter and spirit, of his recommendations made almost seven months ago.

Can you imagine Mr. Torricelli's enthusiasm in favor of a "relaxation" or a change in the US blockade policy, in favor of moving in a more reasonable direction? It is hard to imagine, isn’t it? However, Mr. Torricelli is one of its advocates. His exact words were: "The new measures cannot be objected, nothing here morally offends me". This is Torricelli speaking.

By the way, Mr. Rubin had a few difficulties with the journalists because there are always people who refuse to swallow the same old pill. This page contains a dialogue with a journalist who tells him: "I don't quite understand why Saddam Hussein, against who we have launched missiles, trying to destroy him, against whom we have waged war several times seems to have this facility for purchasing medicines from this country, he can also buy food so, why not Cuba?" This is where Mr. Rubin becomes entangled in his own explanation. But the journalist simply replies: "It just seems like we treat Saddam Hussein at a different level from Cuba".

Now, listen to The New York Times headline, "Anti-Castro exiles’’ --that is the term used when referring to Cuba-- "won limit on changes in US Policy".

The first paragraph of this article is very illustrative, it reads: "Foreign-policy experts, catholic archbishops, the US Chamber of Commerce and senior senators tried hard to push the United States to change its policy towards Cuba significantly. But President Clinton and his intended successor, Vice President Gore, rejected the idea of taking any large steps or even opening policy toward Cuba to a serious review", and quotes US scholar Wayne Smith, who was head of the US Interest Section in Cuba years ago. I do not wish to insult anyone, I will simply read what Wayne Smith said : "There is not much political courage in Washington these days." That's his conclusion about the whole affair.

Minnesota Republican Senator Rod Grams who signed the letter requesting the commission said what follows: "By rejecting this Commission, the President has rejected common sense; after years of an ineffective embargo, it is time to independently revise our relation with Cuba."

Senator Warner, who was the promoter of the letter asking for the bipartisan commission, expressed his disappointment at the dismissal of his idea on the commission without giving it serious thought and that the President had lost the opportunity of taking an important initiative. He said the following --I'm quoting him-- "The current policy treats Cuba more cruelly than Iraq and North Korea, where US embargoes are less restrictive."

Senator Warner, a Virginia Republican, expressed here that McGovern and Moakley, two Democratic representatives, deplored the fact that the Commission had not even been created.

Senator Dodd was one of those who most clearly expressed himself. He is a man who has had a very distinct position in relation to the blockade; he visited us recently. He said he regretted that a decision had not been made to move forward to the establishment of a bipartisan commission to review the US policy as recommended by 24 American senators, and he also said, "I am disappointed that nothing was done to deal with the critical impediments to the sales of medicines to Cuba." At least something in that area so elemental that it particularly shocked a humane person like Senator Dodd.

Also people outside Congress expressed their views. I'm just going to quote here an American businesswoman who characterized or summarized the situation with these words: "It's almost a public relations gimmick where the US government gets credit but they have really done nothing." That is, they have done absolutely nothing but manipulate the way they present it as they want it reflected by the media.

But they have not been totally successful because there are people really talking of easing restrictions, of new measures, and so on and so forth. But I really like this headline of the Chicago Tribune: "US policy...evokes yawns, criticism,’’ that is, what this policy shift provokes is yawns or criticism because something different was expected. No one believes that anything important has been done while everyone had assumed that at least that commission so widely supported would be established.

I want to go back to the measures, the much-trumpeted measures. You must remember what I have already explained concerning the March 20 measures, that is why I spent some time on the issue.

To begin with, on January 5 the blockade and its full enforcement were ratified and no real measure has been taken except one: not to establish the bipartisan commission. That is a fact. The decision not to establish the bipartisan commission does not require any bureaucratic work; no regulation or ordinance needs to be made. Well, that's that: No, to the bipartisan commission; no, to reviewing US policy towards Cuba but rather some measures that Mrs. Albright, her assistant Secretary and the White House spokesman say have nothing to do with the blockade. I'm not saying it, they said it: Have nothing to do (from the original English text). They have nothing to do...

Let us take them one by one.

Remittances. Cubans living in the United States will continue to be the only people in the American Union --because everybody there, except the aborigines, came from some other country, it’s a nation of emigrants-- with limits as to how much they can send their families or how often they can visit with them. No improvement, nothing changed, they can't send a dime over the 300 dollars quarterly, that's all, while any other emigrant can send one thousand, ten thousand or any other amount without any restriction, without the need to report to anyone. No, no, no, "this is what you can send because you are a Cuban and this is going to Cuba". If you are a national of another country no one cares, they would not even try to find out what you are sending. And, as I said before, a lady was punished for trying to send more.

Discrimination, therefore, is maintained against that national group, the Cuban nationals. Then the control, the audits, the surveillance dating back to March 20 will continue so that you don’t send more than you are permitted or face the possibility of punishment or criminal proceedings, as the head of the US Interest Section in Havana said.

The people from Western Union continue for one more year and another month waiting for a license to travel for discussions on an eventual arrangement related to the remittances.

That announcement does add a new element: the possibility that other Americans, people or entities, authorized on a case-by-case basis by the US administration through specific licenses can send money from the United States to Cuban people or entities, even if they are not related. What the hell is this? Is this not the continuation of what I have explained that the Director of Cuban Affairs announced on May 7, that they had given 2 million and 2 more million, and then again they said on October that they had given 2.75 million and would give 3 more million?

Now, in order to intensify their war against Cuba in the political and ideological areas, in the field of subversion --for which Congress already gave the green light in the Budget Law that was passed allowing them to spend at least two million, at least 2 million which can be 30 million, 100 million, any number of millions, only it cannot be less than 2 million-- they have come across the idea of using others, that is, that other American institutions not only the government, not only those who charge it to the federal budget but also foundations, non-governmental organizations, whatever, can finance people who are not their relatives.

It is not the usual, natural aid within a family but an action promoted by the United States government with a clearly subversive, counterrevolutionary, interventionist purpose in a way that can only be rejected in the most categorical manner. The same government which is restricting, limiting, controlling what a Cuban can send his father, or his nephew, that same government is trying to turn Americans and American institutions, some that they mention like religious institutions and others of this kind into instruments of bribery, for buying consciences here in Cuba, in an effort to create traitors, people that would serve the interests of the United States against their own country of origin. Every American buy a Cuban! That seems to be the slogan as if we were slaves, as if we were up for sale.

It is good to remember that in the United States there are very severe laws that strongly punish anyone receiving material or economic aid from abroad, or having certain other links with a foreign country and that, in this respect, there have been several big scandals associated with the latest electoral campaign.

We must say that in their meeting with the press the State Department and National Security Council officials used other insulting elements. All of this is an insult to Cuban independence, sovereignty and national honor, why then would those who insult a whole nation fall short of insulting the churches? Because to say or to think of authorizing organizations and people in the US to send money to religious organizations in Cuba or to religious organizations there so that they can send it to those here with the intent to promote "a democratic transition" to help change Cuba's political system, isn’t that interference? Isn't that disregarding Cuba’s sovereignty and national independence? Isn't that ignoring our national dignity completely? But the insult is twice as serious when they intend to manipulate institutions assigning them functions so alien to their nature.

I’m sure that is not the attitude or way of thinking of religious people. That has nothing to do with Christian spirit or religious beliefs. I should say that I have received phone calls from several Protestant pastors who are friends of mine to express their indignation and that of the members of their congregations. One of these friends was telling me that they have nothing to do with such things, that their mission is loftier, more honorable and noble, as is true of all religious institutions.

That is the new addition. There can now be remittances so that, on top of what the federal budget allocates for subversion some Americans can contribute to the obnoxious task of undermining the Cuban Revolution.

Flights. I reminded you that on July of last year they had suspended indirect flights via third countries because they were going to authorize direct flights again.

That situation has remained more or less unchanged. The flights are maintained with the restrictions, controls, checking points and the reinforced office in Miami and whoever does not comply may go through the same experience as that lady. The only new thing is quite old in a way: the possibility that the flights be not only from and to Miami, but that they include other American cities. President Clinton said more or less the same thing when he spoke on March 20. He did not say it should be limited to one city, he said it was going to be expanded, that there would be other possibilities. When his bureaucrats met with the press on that occasion, I remember one saying that there might be flights from New Jersey.

People from several American states have sent letters to the government --I have some here-- because on March when there was talk of "easing restrictions," when it was said the flights would be expanded they thought: "Maybe now I am given the opportunity of flying from here." Then on May, when the regulation was finally implemented: "No, it's just like before, only from Miami."

Likewise, the possibility has been mentioned that they not only come to Havana but to other Cuban cities. Of course, in that connection as in any other thing concerning Cuba, they have to consult with Cuba. The planes will come if we agree that they should come; the people will come with a visa that we grant. Neither Mrs. Albright nor Mr. Romero, nor any of those gentlemen can decide anything in this country. This country is not a US colony.

Anyway, that is not new either because when there were those indirect flights they had other destinations in Cuba, not only Havana. Actually, it was they who closed the possibility as of July last year. There were flights to Camagüey and I think to Holguín too. That is, since the flight was not direct from Miami, they went, say from Miami to Nassau and from there on to Havana or to the eastern part of Cuba.

As you can see this item is really nothing; it is just as the quoted businesswoman said, it is nothing but they give the impression that they are giving more possibilities and "relaxing" sanctions.

Well, they say that they are going to "ease restrictions" on measures related to visits by US nationals to Cuba although these visits will always be limited to a small number of people, to the categories considered more convenient for their political purposes and all of them controlled through licenses. They will also maintain the prohibition of free travel to Cuba, whose violation is severely punished.

They can relax as much as they want but, of course, the potential visitor will have to go by our office in Washington for the visa. In fact, we hope that American citizens can exercise their constitutional right to travel to our country. There are more Americans than they are willing to admit who are in Cuba even now because there are always Americans who do not accept these restrictions.

We favor an opening, having more Americans visit Cuba, all those who want and as many times as they want to without irritating and arbitrary exclusions. We favor the lifting of the blockade as we favor respect and normal relations. They were the ones who turned a visit to Cuba into a crime, who have punished and persecuted Americans for traveling to Cuba. Now they curiously say they are going to be flexible.

Does that mean that they are going to sustain the threats against Pastors for Peace or are they going to withdraw them? That they are going to continue investigating Global Exchange or that they are going to stop threatening those who have come?

They have also mentioned the possibility --and this would have to be studied since they have not even presented it as a totally announced policy but rather as something to be considered-- of restoring direct mail service between Cuba and the United States. Great. Who was it that suspended it? Who was it that banned the means of transportation that for decades, all this century had brought the mail, the letters? Who invented the blockade, the restrictions? It was the United States.

I don't know how the letters can be sent directly if there is no regular air communication as it exists the world over according to international agreements. It's not a matter of sending the letters with homing pigeons or through mechanisms which are not the standard procedure prohibited by the blockade.

But there is another very important thing. When the mail, the postal packages from the United States arrived in Cuba, on one occasion five workers sustained very serious injuries and there was a lot of material damage because some of those parcels contained bombs sent from there. This happened many years ago, about 30 years ago.

Around that time, an American worker in Texas was also injured when a package blew up which was destined for Cuba. Some years later --I think it was 1979 or 1989-- four American workers in the New York airport were injured by a bomb somebody had placed inside a package being sent to Cuba although not directly.

Of course, I think that something like this would have to be carefully studied --they say so in their announcement-- as it is the procedure in every country.

Some basic things I would ask them about the establishment of this direct communication would be: What are you going to do about your terrorists? What are you going to do to ensure that nobody gets hurt, either here or there, as a result of actions that have long been originating there, with people who are there and who continue to be actively organized there? Honestly, the measures they should really announce, or have announced long ago, are the effective measures to put an end to the tolerance and protection of the terrorist groups which recently placed bombs in hotels in Cuba, as we all know, and which have not stopped hatching extremely serious plans and actions against our country.

Can they guarantee that such things do not happen? Are they going to convince me of their willingness to make serious efforts to guarantee that? If they have not been able to do it with those who several times tried to destroy Cuban aircraft in flight and once succeeded in doing it, some of which live happily in Miami, who can assure me that they will take serious measures to prevent that something inside a plane might cause harm at the destination point?

Then they talk about the sale of food or the possibility of agricultural inputs for businesses or individuals. Here we find the churches again, and explicitly because when these gentlemen who were explaining the measures were asked, when someone asked: "Who is it going to be, where will it go to?" One said: "Well, we have the Christian churches to begin with," as an idea that simply crossed his mind. He is talking of Catholics and Protestants.

I want this to be very clear, it is not I who say this. I don't think our Christians are thinking any such thing, this has nothing to do with Christianity. I think it is truly impertinent and insulting to any Cuban or American religious person that an institution with a different mission in life is presented as an instrument at the service of the destabilizing, subversive purposes of an arrogant imperialist power heedless of every rule that dares to publicly and overtly say such thing.

It is not that they are going to authorize the sale of a single pea or the sending of a seed. First of all, it is on a case-by-case basis and authorized by them through a license. If an American group or entity wants to send money or food and agriculture-related products as it is the case, they will make a selection. It would not be just anybody but rather Washington that would decide to whom and whether a license is issued but only to the person chosen by them, according to their objectives and intention. It has nothing to do with humanitarian or any other concern about the Cubans need for food or seeds or farming gear for a private farmer or a cooperative farmer or our people.

Do you remember what I said of March 20 when President Clinton spoke about discussing with Congress to find formulas that would make it possible to "transfer" food to Cuba? What were they discussing then? Whether it would be donations or sales. Well, now they are back-pedaling even further, now they mean to use that exclusively as a weapon, as an instrument of subversion and bribery for undermining a country.

Why not for the whole people as Clinton said last year: "transfer to Cuba," not to private individuals on a case-by-case basis, not authorized by them with this conspiratorial intent very well studied with an utterly subversive goal. Where is their right and their morale to want to privilege anyone, to create new exploiters here who would have possibilities that the rest of the people would not have, the government which, at the same time, intends to kill our people denying it food and medicine?

I believe this way of thinking is so obviously immoral that it is amazing they are so insane and shameless as to try to tarnish

--certainly without consulting them or asking their views-- institutions which deserve all our respect and theirs too. They should begin by respecting instead of presenting them as potential candidates to accessories of that policy which only warrants the most indignant repudiation and rejection.

And then, of course, the last measure: "public diplomacy". More money, more resources to convince people in Latin America and Europe that this is good policy. Part of this policy is to try to deceive many people into thinking that there is greater flexibility, that things are changing. What for? To achieve what is definitely their main interest: to counteract that growing wave of rejection to the blockade that will continue to grow. It will continue to grow in the world and in the very United States and they will have this eternal contradiction: trying to confuse, to immobilize the people while there is really no change. Improve their image, said that businesswoman, doing absolutely nothing.

I cannot conclude these remarks without touching on some other items I consider essential.

Going back to the subject of medicines, they say that on March 20 they "speeded up" the procedure to allow sales. I will say it again: that is a huge lie, Cuba has not been able to buy a single aspirin and that is impossible in the United States. But there is a lot more than that. Actually, they not only deprive us of the possibility to buy medicines, spare parts or medical equipment in the United States but they go out of their way to prevent us from buying them elsewhere.

Here we have this fax (shows it), for example, informing CUFLET, our freight company, that it is impossible for a ship carrying Chinese medicines bought in China, a sister country that has nothing to do with the blockade, to come to Cuba. We bought an important cargo of essential Chinese medicines and chartered a vessel to bring those medicines, but what happened? Since the ship is coming from the Far East to the Antilles, the shipping company instructed the captain to call on port at the United States on his way back to pick up a cargo to take back to Asia.

This is economically more sensible than making a voyage and returning empty. When they started making the necessary arrangements to go by the United States to pick up the cargo after leaving Cuba they were told they could not because, as you may remember, since the Torricelli Act in 1992, a ship that calls on a Cuban port cannot call on an American port until after at least six months. So here is the message: Very sorry. That’s it.

As a result, Cuba with its limited resources had to go out to the world once again after those medicines so necessary for our people cause we never stop doing as best we can for our people's well-being. It took us three months to obtain the medicines again, of course, we had to pay a lot more for them because the salesman realizes the situation and thinks, if these people are living under such harassment...that is something you pay for in economic terms.

I have a few more cases. This is a famous one: the artificial kidneys donated by an NGO. Of course, the equipment wears down and needs to have parts replaced. When we tried to buy the spare parts we received this notice: "In response to your faxed request; unfortunately we cannot supply you the COBE equipment since we have a partnership with a US company and I am not allowed to sell equipment or refraction to your country. I hope this situation may change soon so that I can attend to you deservedly."

Is there a "relaxation"? Is there any change? Are the procedures "speeded up"? I think it is worthwhile that our people see this because this is one of several applications that must be filled in to request a license. What is President Clinton going to "speed up"? The procedures for the licenses.

What is a license to buy medicine? In the first place it is recommended that anyone wanting to do so reads this document

(shows it) which is a guide describing everything that needs to be done to apply for a license. As you can see, it is quite long and several forms follow. This is one: Model BXA-748-F, which is not the only one. As you can see (shows it) there is a series of questions and answers must be provided. Let me read for you a piece of what it says in the explanation of how to fill in the form.

"Requirements for licenses: Due to the fact that Cuba is a country under embargo conditions, practically all US goods require an export license from the Department of Commerce. These applications, for the majority of goods, may receive a negative response, although some goods in specific are submitted to case-by-case analysis."

Then it explains the format, it explains what needs to be done. This is BXA-748, as I said. Well, this is BXA-711, which is another one (shows it).

"To sell a medicine," it reads here, "note box 24. You must describe here or in an attached letter of explanation the monitoring and verification conditions in the place that has been chosen in order to be sure that the articles reach their final points and are of use to those for whom they were destined. This must include the name of the party carrying out the monitoring, its frequency and who will keep the records.

"The options of the body for monitoring include, but are not limited to, monitoring by the applicant, charitable or religious groups, western diplomats or western non-governmental groups.

"The inspection records must be kept on site and they must be available for the United States authorities on request."

In other words, they have to go through all that complicated mechanism of monitoring and following right up to the final use of the product. And with the medical product, the medicine, who is the final user? The patient, right? Verifying, being sure that the aspirin was taken by the patient; the western inspectors, religious, charitable inspectors who would be in the drugstores where they can see that someone bought some aspirins. But that is no proof that the aspirin went to the final recipient. He must be followed to the house to check that he took the pill.

I have here a very revealing letter which was sent to MEDICUBA on 1st July 1998 by a company, the details of which I'm not going to give because something might happen to it. "I have bad news. Today, I received from the Department of Commerce" --which issues the export licenses-- "another useless document" --their words, not mine-- "another useless document with additional requirements for the export license for the electrodes and accessories. They now ask for a statement of who the user of these components will be and verification that the merchandise will be used for the declared aims."

The foreign manager who is sending the letter goes on to say: "Even if these conditions were acceptable to you, which I very much doubt, they are not acceptable to me and my company. It is not commercially feasible to take on this responsibility for accounting and follow-up for each order and to compete in prices and services with companies that do not have these requirements." Imagine what it would cost a businessman to go running after every product, right to the final recipient, right to the end user.

It would be endless. It's really maddening because they are denying us the possibility of purchasing medicines, spare parts, medical equipment. They have been doing this for over 30 years. But it is still more maddening that, on top of that, they also have the cheek to say that it is not like that, that purchases can be made and also that they are "easing restriction,’’ that it is easier and easier.

I'm not going to continue, I just want to say this: I hope that it will not be long before a friend arrives from the United States, whose name I will not reveal because that person could end up in prison, who is bringing to this country a medicine produced only in the United States necessary to save the life of a newborn who at this very moment is in a very serious condition and who is being cared for with great devotion --like all Cuban children and adults are when they need it-- in the cardiovascular center by our health workers. But the doctors are running out of the product, acquired before at great sacrifice.

I can tell you that this is not ancient history. It was not last month but today, 8 January 1999. I'm not going to give the details, it would not be prudent. It is necessary to protect certain people who do quite a lot and who deserve our utmost consideration for buying the medicine and bringing it here which is the only way to have it because not everybody has the same moral values as some US politicians.

There are also very honorable people, very noble people, very fraternal people. But if they were to go to the laboratory in question they would be told --as we were told-- that it can't be sold, that they can't even fill in those forms (points at them) and, if they had done so, imagine: what's the name of the newborn, where does it live, where can it be found, how can it be verified that the newborn is receiving the product, and fill in all that in the case it would be given. This is the only solution whereby some people show their solidarity and they deserve our utmost discretion.

Another strange event: the Baltimore Orioles which they have mentioned as an example of something that might happen. Some people might get the impression that it is their measure, that it has occurred to them now.

I will say no more than this: The Orioles are a professional baseball team but they are also professionals at negotiations with the Treasury Department and the State Department to obtain permission to play baseball with the Cubans because this idea is three years old. The bureaucrats in Washington did not invent that.

A year ago, I recall receiving here in Havana the mayor of Baltimore, and this is just an example. It's been a long time since they began trying to get permission to be able to negotiate with Cuba and come to an agreement on a competition, if they are allowed to have the competition at all. First step: that they are given permission to travel to be able to sit down to talk and analyze the details. Well, they have been discussing whether it is going to be an aluminum bat or a wooden bat, the height of the box, the possible dates, all those things. That has been between the INDER [National Institute of Sport, Physical Education and Recreation] and them with the will and the desire to organize a sports match.

I have with me a list of all the people in Baltimore who are backing, cosponsoring the possibility of this match which include all the religious institutions, Catholic, Lutheran, the National Council of Churches, the Jews and many others. And, suddenly, these people come up characterizing it as an example, a proof of their "flexibility" sort of a challenge to us: "Now we'll see. The first test is going to be what they do with the Orioles."

On the other hand, they say that it can only be done if the conditions required by the US government are met.

The United States authorities have really been trying to sabotage this legitimate sport activity, first by turning the Orioles into the champions of waiting for a bureaucratic license: three years. Secondly, trying to jeopardize as much as possible the contacts they knew we had with that Baltimore team.

In addition to those technical details, the authorities have interfered with their influence and pressures on the baseball team creating difficulties about the use of any funds that might result from those competitions, trying to introduce divisive, subversive and discriminatory elements in the final use of what there might be, in the case of there being any profit. But our position has been very clear. They should be set aside to purchase medicines for the Central American patients victims of Hurricane Mitch who are being cared for by our doctors and nurses. Such a noble idea, I believe that the team officials and the players would feel very honored by doing that.

I should say that the management of the Orioles team’s attitude has been normal. No criticism can be made of them, no fault found. They are interested in sports. They know that Cuba is a baseball power. It is a challenge and an honor for any team to compete with the Cubans and they have not introduced any element of distortion or politicking into it. Washington has done that by handling the issue this way, but let's wait and see what happens. Let's see them who talk about the first test if they are truly capable of letting that be done in normal, legitimate conditions without the demagogy and illegality that they are trying to put into it.

Talking about tests, there is no need to go far. On 19 January, there should be a trial where the dispute will be settled between a French firm associated with Cuba in the sale and export of rum and a company owned by some Americans of Cuban origin who pretend to have been the owners of a factory that produces the rum. Strictly speaking, that is not true since the factory producing that rum was not exactly the property of the plaintiffs.

Taking refuge in the privileges they enjoy in the United States, since these people now feel much more encouraged with Section 211 as I said, they infringe international standards on trademarks and patents. They are on the brink of further complicating their relations with the rest of the world and setting a negative precedent. Of course, trademarks and patents do not exist only on one side, and rights and attributes and respect for international standards need to work for all parties. Here, there are US companies trademarks and patents registered. It is not just a trademark in the United States market. There are US trademarks here and they know it. The owners of those trademarks and patents should be concerned at the recklessness of a government which can carry out actions that would not be left unanswered. That is the least I can say.

There is also a gentleman over there, a judge whose last name is King and who apparently acts as if he was a king because this gentleman is trying to deprive Cuba of the resources that are due to us accruing from the payments they make to us, and which they have to make to us for telephone communications between the two countries, whereby one part goes to the US company and the other comes here. At the moment, there is the threat that this judge will enforce an order issued by him which, if it were, it would deprive Cuba of the money that is ours from payments that are indispensable for there to be telephone communications.

Those interested who are talking about "flexibility", steps, contacts between the two countries, let them go buy homing pigeons because if we are not paid we are not going to give the United States a free service. That would affect communications between people living here and there.

We have warned them about this quite a few times. We can prove it has been the Cuban side warning the State Department: "Look, gentlemen, this is happening, and this could cause great trouble."

What has the US administration done? I can say that, as I was leaving to come here I received the first bit of news about a lawyers’ meeting where they had decided to see into it and check if there is something they can do, a notification or a gesture. I'm saying this to be totally accurate. The first information from there we had it today but we have produced a ton of information warning them because we simply do not want to create a problem. However, nobody should expect for there to be telephone communications and for us to give them the service for free while a US company reaps all the benefits.

What has the administration done to abort that danger? Frankly, when they announced with such fanfare that they were going to take some measures on Cuba one might have thought that they were going to do something to get rid of Section 211 which can stir up so much trouble, that they were going to do something, finally, so that this illegality is not realized, or that they were going to create, at least, a commission to study US policy toward Cuba, to study a failed policy.

What they have done is to inform the world that the blockade stays in place, that they will try to foster it, to convince others, to make more propaganda and while on that road where they are also doomed, to try to divide us, to undermine us, to try to weaken us from within.

I think that we have explained the core of this issue. Finally, I just wanted to say that we should think what it is that explains maneuvers as clumsy as the one that we are witnessing.

I have already described that there is an irrepressible current against the blockade which is spreading right into the United States and that this forces them to desperately try to maintain that policy by lying, deceiving, confusing. They know that policy is doomed for two fundamental reasons: first, due to the resistance and patriotism, the unity among Cubans which explains why we are here and why we are even advancing in the recovery of our economy; why we are here almost 10 years after the collapse of the socialist bloc; why they have not been able to divide us or weaken us or to subdue the Cubans' patriotic will. Secondly, international solidarity, the peoples' support, the defense of Cuba's right to independence and respect for national sovereignty to which the Cuban nation is entitled and which it will never negotiate, not for anything.

That is growing and it is growing even inside the United States. That is why senators, businessmen, journalists and the clergy reject that policy, and that rejection of the blockade policy will grow as that call for its complete and unconditional modification and removal.

I also wanted to add that I don't have any doubt that the Cuban nation will react against this new attempt at aggression, a new attempt to attack us. It is an ideological attack, a political attack without giving really anything but trying to confuse and to deceive and beginning by insulting an educated people, an intelligent people, a people that cannot be so easily confused. Furthermore, an honorable people that takes offense because the Cuban people cannot be bribed, cannot be bought, cannot be hired. Here there are no institutions that would take part in that repulsive task of buying or hiring consciences, of serving the empire that seeks our destruction.

I'm sure that our workers, our farmers, our cooperative workers, our private farmers, our selfless industrial and agricultural laborers, our social institutions, our organizations, the trade unions, the women, the young people, the students, our religious institutions, our organizations that bring together people with different religious beliefs, our intellectuals, our academics have nothing to do with that mean image of the empire which believes that consciences have a price, that they are up for sale. This is not that kind of people.

I'm sure that all those institutions that I have mentioned and all our people will strongly reject this new stage of the war against Cuba, that they will continue onward in unity, that they will continue onward with the same patriotic spirit, additionally encouraged by that awareness about this whole desperate maneuver whereby they know that that blockade and that criminal policy are going to have to be abandoned, are going to have to be changed. If they want to review the policy, let them do it. If not, that's their business. But one day, with or without revision, they will have to abandon it because they won't be able to sustain it against the growing opposition of the world, the growing opposition of the US people and the patriotic will of the Cubans.

I believe this conviction should encourage us and remind us that precisely that attitude of unity and patriotism is the main obstacle to their plans and has been our main weapon to save the independence and the dignity of this country.

Thank you very much.