Matanzas harbour in 2018.

Joel Suárez: “Solidarity is the political name for love” 

In the context of the arrival of the Nuestra América convoy in Cuba, Joel Suárez spoke with La Jornada opinions editor Luis Hernández Navarro about the motivations of those who have rallied to help the island in the face of President Donald Trump’s “cynical and genocidal siege.”

Suárez is a key figure in the weaving of global solidarity relations between Cuba and other countries. His father, Rev. Raúl Suárez, was founder of the Martin Luther King Memorial Centre (CMMLK) in Havana, and Joel served as its coordinator for about 20 years. Raúl and Joel were central to the successful rapprochement between churches and the government in the 1990s, and Joel was part of the drive to expand the World Social Forum from its roots in Porto Alegre, Brazil. CMMLK is a global partner of The United Church of Canada. I first met Joel in Kingston, Jamaica, in October 2000 when we both attended a Caribbean Conference of Churches consultation. He was among my guides to diverse ecumenical and political situations I encountered in Cuba, Brazil, Venezuela, Colombia and beyond.

I am pleased to share some excerpts of the conversation between Joel and Luis here below.

Those who support us have an affinity for the revolution

Luis: These days, support has been arriving in Cuba from various countries. How is this solidarity being received? The right wing claims they are “useful idiots.” What is your opinion?

Joel: No one came here out of foolishness. There is always political tourism, but here, people came motivated by deep feelings of love and solidarity, which is the political name for love.

We need to understand where this solidarity comes from. It comes from people who sympathize with the revolutionary project and oppose the Cuban dissidents and their closeness to the empire and the United States government. They are part of a camp where there are diverse opinions about Cuba, where people converge who think this is heaven and who question those who claim this is hell.

But we are neither heaven nor hell. This is the country we have been able to create and that we have built under very adverse conditions. In this solidarity, there are many well-intentioned people who, despite the obvious differences, compare what is happening in Gaza to what is happening in Cuba: policies of genocide that use food, hunger, and energy as weapons of war, and intensify the siege against the country.

These people say: let the Cubans do what they want. If they want to go to hell or heaven, let them do it. They have come motivated by this feeling of understanding of our sovereignty and the difficult situation we are experiencing. There is another group of people who have come because they feel immensely indebted. Cuba travels the world not sharing what it has in excess, but the little we have.

Luis: Who are these aid workers?

Joel: Here I met people who came because they are parents of young people who became doctors in Cuba. People who came because Cuban medical brigades assisted the population in their countries during natural disasters. People from Central America who were supported by Cubans in the days following Hurricane Mitch. I met Italians from regions like Calabria where, despite the US offensive, 400 Cuban doctors continue to treat the sick and provide healthcare. Africans also came who are familiar with Cuba’s long history of contributing to national liberation movements in Africa, to the independence of Namibia and Angola.

Members of platforms and networks organized at the regional and global levels came. The People’s Forum of the United States brought a delegation of 40 young people. They have a campaign in the United States to purchase solar panels. Solidarity needs to be given substance and a material dimension.

Luis: What kind of solidarity is being shown?

Joel: We are seeking to connect this solidarity aid with strategies that not only provide temporary relief to the current situation but also contribute to greater sustainability. The solar panels, along with the strategies being implemented by our Ministry of Energy and Mines, aim to provide energy to healthcare centers, public services, banks, and, above all, water sources.

Another important contribution is in the area of ​​healthcare. They are donating both general and specialized medicines, as well as medical supplies for therapies. They are trying to revitalize the surgical system in the country. There are hundreds of children waiting for operations. There are groups that have practiced more sustained solidarity over the years, for example, with oncology.

It’s important to connect this support with material aid to our organizations in Cuba. Contributions from various partners of CMMLK in the United States, Europe, and Colombia are sent to rural areas of Guantánamo, where we have people organized in social transformation projects. These projects are in the strategic planning stage, based on participatory assessments conducted with the community.

Luis: So, this support doesn’t go through the state?

Joel: Solidarity in Cuba has diverse channels. Churches, neighbours who bring a suitcase to their neighbours, and the neighbour distributes it among their friends, family, and family doctor. The Martin Luther King Centre, as a legally established association, has the legal mechanisms and guarantees for its own import of containers. Not only for this energy crisis, but also since the pandemic, or in the face of natural disasters, especially hurricanes. We have an area that constantly mobilizes international solidarity to confront emergency situations and this cynical, genocidal siege by Trump and the United States government.

Luis: How does Cuban society view this solidarity? As mere crumbs, or does it have another meaning?

Joel: There’s a bit of everything, like in a pharmacy. Many people bring donations and don’t publicize it. In general, there’s respect for the dignity of Cubans, forged in the face of imperialism, so they won’t hesitate or be harmed by any charity that’s meant to be publicized. People are grateful. They get anxious, saying, “Where is it? It hasn’t arrived.”

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said Monday that her government is working with Cuba to renew fuel shipments. After almost three months of a U.S. oil blockade, a Russian tanker with 730,000 barrels of oil arrived in Matanzas, Cuba. Photo: La Jornada.

The aid that the Mexican government is sending, which is substantial, is distributed through the distribution systems of the Ministry of the Food Industry and the Ministry of Domestic Trade, and arrives at the bodegas (ration stores) in rationed quantities, free of charge. People are grateful.

It’s a dramatic situation, but we are grateful. Solidarity is a value that persists. What characterizes the new situation is the solidarity networks operating in communities, neighbourhoods, institutions, among people in civil society, and within the government agenda.

Likewise, we must not forget that the problem is marked by a global context of a fierce advance of the right, with an avalanche of a process of hegemony, domination and cultural homogenization of imperialism.

Ecuador bans opposition party, criminalizes ecological defenders, joins U.S. military attacks

by Jim Hodgson

In a just world, news that Ecuador has banned its largest opposition party would be enough to scuttle Canada’s plans for a free trade agreement with the country – and even end U.S. military collaboration. But that is not the world we live in.

The news came as 77 organizations from Ecuador, Canada and around the world sent a letter to Canada’s ambassador in Ecuador urging the embassy to adopt Canada’s 2019 Voices at Risk: Canada’s Guidelines on Supporting Human Rights Defenders in response to the criminalization of Indigenous and environmental defenders. Among the signatories are MiningWatch Canada, Common Frontiers, and KAIROS Canada.

The letter to Ambassador Craig Kowalik was sent in response to the criminalization of Indigenous and environmental defenders from the Federation of Indigenous and Campesino Organizations of Azuay (FOA, Federación de Organizaciones lndigenas y Campesinas del Azuay). 

FOA members are facing criminal proceedings for their environmental defense work to safeguard the Kimsakocha páramo from the Loma Larga gold mining project, owned by Canadian mining company DPM Metals Inc.

The letter to the embassy expresses concern over criminal charges initiated by DPM Metals against six FOA members — Lauro Sigcha, Lizardo Zhaqui, Marco Tapia, Ruth Pugo, Carmita Pérez, and Yaku Pérez — following a peaceful clean-up action to remove mining waste left by the company near the headwaters of the Irquis and Tarqui rivers in the Kimsakocha páramo. The Kimsakocha páramo is a fragile ecosystem that regulates the regional hydrological cycle and provides fresh water to tens of thousands of people. For more than 30 years, Indigenous and peasant communities have defended this ecosystem against large-scale mining projects.

Ecuador bans opposition party

Acting on the request of the government-aligned Prosecutor General, an electoral judge in Ecuador on Friday (March 6) ordered the nine-month suspension of the country’s largest opposition party, the Citizens’ Revolution (RC ). 

The Center for Economic and Policy Research (CEPR) denounced the ban as the latest escalation in a broader pattern of authoritarian regression, including lawfare against opponents, repeated states of emergency, and deepening military ties with the Trump administration.

“The government of President Daniel Noboa, who is strongly backed by President Trump, is trying to accelerate the destruction of what is left of democracy in Ecuador,” said CEPR Co-Director Mark Weisbrot. The move bars RC –led by former President Rafael Correa – from local elections to be held in 2027.

U.S.-Ecuador military strikes

On the same day as the ban on the RC party, the Ecuadorian and U.S. militaries conducted joint airstrikes near the Colombian border targeting a site allegedly tied to dissidents from the former FARC guerrillas from Colombia. 

These “lethal kinetic operations,” as the U.S. military calls them, are another of Noboa’s efforts since his 2023 election to deepen ties with Washington — including a failed attempt to re-establish a U.S. military base in the country.

Days earlier, on Tuesday (March 3), the United States and Ecuador launched joint attacks against “designated terrorist organizations” – Trumpspeak for drug-traffickers.

Since September last year, the United States has attacked small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific, but these attacks in Ecuador are the first known land operations by U.S. forces against drug cartels. At least 150 people have been killed in 44 known strikes. The United States has never shown proof that any of the dead were in fact moving illegal drugs.

While neither government will say precisely where the attacks are happening, Noboa ordered curfews in four provinces west and southwest of Quito, extending to the city of Guayaquil and beyond. Noboa said his country was “entering a new phase in the internal war.”

* An update (March 25 from Drop Site News:

New York Times investigation raises serious questions about a March 6 airstrike that Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth publicized on social media as proof the U.S. military was “now bombing Narco Terrorists on land.”

According to the Times, the target appears to have been a 350-acre cattle and dairy farm owned by a 32-year-old carpenter named Miguel, not a drug trafficking compound. Farm workers told the Times that Ecuadorean soldiers arrived three days earlier, beat and detained four Colombian workers, subjected them to waterboarding and electric shocks, doused structures with gasoline and set them alight—then returned on March 6 to film themselves bombing the smoldering ruins, producing footage Ecuador and the U.S. jointly promoted as the destruction of a traffickers’ training camp.

The Pentagon said the strike was conducted “jointly” with Ecuador, though Times sources said U.S. troops had no direct involvement in the bombing itself. Ecuador claimed to have recovered weapons and evidence of illicit activity but released no photographs, as it typically does following drug seizures. “It’s a lie that 50 people trained here,” Miguel said, standing amid his dead chickens. “There’s no logic.” (NYT)

The Shield of the Americas: a summit of nations on their knees

by Jim Hodgson

Leaders of a dozen Latin American and Caribbean nations spent a few hours last week with President Donald Trump at one of his golf courses near Miami. This was the launch of the “Shield of the Americas,” a bloc of right-wing governments that have pledged to join Trump’s war against so-called “narco-terrorism.”

The spectacle recalled for me a 1992 film, El Viaje (The Journey), by Argentinian director Fernando “Pino” Solanas. It won prizes at film festivals in Cannes and Havana, and I saw it in Toronto.

El Viaje satirizes the way Latin American governments in the 1980s and 90s knelt before the rich countries for the sake of debt forgiveness, implementing austerity programs that harmed their own people. One scene (above right) shows a meeting of the Organización de Países Arrodillados (the Organization of Countries on their Knees). You can see a clip on Facebook.

In Miami, the leaders plainly knew that their face time with Trump was squeezed out from his preoccupation with his ill-conceived and unpopular war on Iran. They even applauded his insults: “I’m not learning your damn language,” said Trump. “I don’t have time.”

Beyond the farce, however, there is harsh reality to be faced. 

Trump called for an “anti-cartel coalition” that would use military might to “eradicate” drug cartels. A day earlier, his “war secretary,” Pete Hegseth, warned representatives from 16 countries in the region that if they didn’t adopt more aggressive strategies against drug cartels, the Trump regime would do it for them. Hegseth urged the countries to remain “Christian nations, under God, proud of our shared heritage with strong borders,” and not to be led astray by “radical narco-communism, anarcho-tyranny… and uncontrolled mass migration.”

Since his return to power 14 months ago:

Trump’s threat at the summit to “take care of” Cuba drew an immediate response from Havana. President Miguel Díaz-Canel wrote on X:

“The little reactionary and neocolonial summit in Florida, convened by the United States and attended by right-wing governments from the region, commit themselves to accept lethal use of U.S. military force to resolve internal problems of order and tranquility in their countries.”

Díaz-Canel said the summit was an attack on the 2014 proclamation of Latin America and the Caribbean as a Zone of Peace, a declaration signed in Havana (photo above by René Pérez Massola.) The summit, he added, also attacked “aspirations for regional integration” and was “a sign of their willingness to subordinate themselves to the interests of the powerful nation to the north.”

Cuba’s foreign minister, Bruno Rodríguez, said the Miami summit was “a clear and dangerous setback in the long and difficult process of independence for the peoples of Latin America and the Caribbean.”

In his speech, Trump said that Mexico was the “epicentre” of drug-trafficking. The cartels, he said, “are getting worse and taking over the country. The cartels are running Mexico. We can’t have that. Too close to us, too close to you.”

Hours later, President Claudia Sheinbaum, pleaded for “cabeza fría” (cool heads) as Mexico determines its next moves – all (like Canada) under the pressure of new free trade talks with the United States.

A few days before the summit, Costa Rica’s president-elect, Laura Fernández, called Mexico “a reference point for where we do not want to go” regarding violence, organized crime and drug-trafficking. She was the minister of national planning and economic policy under the out-going president, Rodrigo Chaves. Chaves attended the Sheild summit, not Fernández, but her comment got attention in Mexico.

In an editorial, the daily newspaper La Jornada said that if Fernández wants to avoid the suffering experienced in Mexico over the past two decades, she should bear in mind that the crisis of insecurity was launched by a politician of the same ultra-right current that she represents. After his election in 2006, President Felipe Calderón began Mexico’s war on drugs by:

“opening the country to U.S. spy agencies, subordinating national interests to those of Washington, ignoring the social and economic roots of the crime phenomenon, and declaring a war against his own citizens. The violence of the state became a criterion for measuring success. The lessons of the Calderón years are important to for the other governments (and the governed) that still see or pretend to see the White House ‘war on drugs’ as an offensive against criminal structures and not the mechanism of imperial domination that it is.”