Slashdot Mirror


Cuba Getting Internet Upstream Via Venezuela

An anonymous reader writes "Seems like Cuba is working around the US internet embargo by teaming up with Venezuela: A confidential contract released yesterday on Wikileaks reveals Cuba's plan to receive internet upstream via an undersea cable to Venezuela, thus circumventing the enduring embargo of the US, denying Cuba access to nearby American undersea cables and overcoming the current limits of satellite-only connectivity. The connection, to be delivered by CVG Telecom of Venezuela, is to be completed by 2010 and will provide data, video as well as voice service for both the public and governmental services."

9 of 486 comments (clear)

  1. You know... by RudeIota · · Score: 4, Informative
    While the U.S has reasons for the enduring trade embargo, providing them access to such information could very well have positive effects for the U.S., not to mention the cuban public.

    And yeah, it is kind of idealist, but making information readily available (potentially) gives the Cuban public a powerful tool to guide their own country... I could see how that would benefit both America AND the Cuban people. "The pen is mightier than the sword"

    What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic, but what could be far more useful and helpful would be only offering Cuba the tools of undoing their very own dictatorship, such as access to the Internet and other forms of communication. This is also fits nicely with Cuba's new found freedoms under Raul, including access to some new technologies (cell phones, in particular).

    --
    Fact: Everything I say is fiction.
    1. Re:You know... by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 4, Informative

      What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic

      Horseshit.

      What the US has been doing so far is largely punishment for nationalizing property during the revolution, somewhat overlapping with the ongoing pander to the Cuban exiles in South Florida; there's a bit of legacy anti-communist paranoia there, too. Anyone who thinks that the US maintains the embargo against the Cubans is because they're undemocratic is ignorant or deluded.

    2. Re:You know... by Kristoph · · Score: 3, Informative

      What we've been doing so far has just been punishment for being non-democratic

      No, that has absolutely NOTHING to do with it.

      Consider that some of our best friends in the Middle East (such as Saudi Arabia) are not democratic and we not only not embargo them but we sell them weapons wholeheartedly.
       

  2. Re:Surprised? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    It was in response to the seizure of US companies in Cuba. The original plan was to lift the embargo when those companies were compensated for their losses. Eventually it was maintained due to human rights issues and Cuba's alliance with the Soviet Union. Carter lifted it during his Presidency, but Reagan reinstated it stating that no progress had been made and that Cuba had no intention of changing itself. It would have probably have been lifted during Clinton's second term if Cuba hadn't shot down the Hermanos al Rescate planes. After that incident, the Cuban vote in Florida solidified in support of the embargo.

  3. Re:Surprised? by Maxmin · · Score: 4, Informative

    one advantage of socialized medicine is that the government gets to decide when further treatment doesn't make "economic sense"

    Oh really? Have you got anything to back that statement up?

    You believe that doctors in countries with state-run medicine can say to patients and their families, "Look, this is getting expensive, and it looks like s/he is going to die in a few weeks anyway. Checkout is on down the hall on the left" ... etc.?

    I can't imagine where you're getting your ideas from. Personal experience: my ex is a doctor from a country with "socialized medicine" ... from what I saw and heard during my time there (Germany), it doesn't work like that at all. End-of-life was one of the biggest issues she dealt with, because -get this- they saw patients through to the end. Preventative care and perhaps the much lower obesity rates probably have a little *something* to do with their lower per-capita medical costs..

    --
    O lord, bless this thy holy hand grenade, that with it thou mayest blow thine enemies to tiny bits, in thy mercy.
  4. Re:Surprised? by vidarh · · Score: 5, Informative
    There's a vast difference between not wanting to be a puppet state controlled by a US supported dictator who hands property over to US corporations whenever he felt like it, and not wanting Americans.

    If you can't understand that difference you'll have a big problem understanding Cuba.

    Castro was fiercely nationalistic, not unlike a lot of US politicians, and had a lot against US influence on that basis. His opposition to the US and to Americans only strengthened as a result of the US response after he took power and started taking back what had been stolen from the Cuban people by Batista, a lot of which had been handed over to US companies.

  5. Re:Surprised? by vidarh · · Score: 4, Informative
    Batista was elected in '40, yes. But he lost the '44 election, and then took power again in '52 through a coup. He was then overthrown in '58. So Cuba was "free and democratic" under Batista for 4 years, and a dictatorship for 6.

    If you are trying to imply the '54 election when he ran unopposed was free and fair, then the other reply you got comparing him to Mugabe was quite fitting.

  6. Re:Surprised? by mrogers · · Score: 5, Informative

    > The groups that murdered their way into power hated the US with a passion

    Ever wondered why? In both cases, the groups were fighting to overthrow dictatorships supported by the US:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulgencio_Batista#The_Second_Coup
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Ajax

    I'm no fan of Khomeini or Castro, I certainly don't support their repressive governments, but the US-backed governments they overthrew weren't necessarily any better.

  7. Re:Surprised? by MrSteveSD · · Score: 3, Informative

    But I agree - The embargo is idiotic.

    The embargo has been condemned by the UN General Assembly for the last 15 years or so. It's not just the US conducting the embargo though. The US government has bullied international companies and banks to join in. Recently banks in the UK have told customers they will have to stop trading with Cuba or find another bank.

    The embargo has nothing to do with Cuba not being a democracy of course. Even if Cuba was a democracy, it would no doubt be the "wrong" kind of democracy and would be subject to a US-backed coup as was the case in Venezuela in 2002 (although it failed). It's not just a case of economic embargoes either. The US waged a campaign of terror against Cuba known as Operation Mongoose. At one point a Cuban airliner was blown up, and it is believed to have been carried out by a CIA agent called Luis Posada Carriles. The US has been harbouring this man for some time and refuses to extradite him to Venezuela in case he is tortured (or at least that is the excuse). They must fear something worse than waterboarding since that apparently is ok now.

    The people liked us shortly after the revolution and blue jeans and MTV could have really made for a good relationship

    Well liking US culture is very different from liking the US government. This is why anti-American is such a stupid and propagandistic word. People who complain about US government actions are often called anti-American, which conjures up the notion that they hate US culture and American citizens in general. The US government wrecked the democracy the Iranians had in 1953, installed a dictator, then trained a brutal secret police called the SAVAK to keep him in power. The CIA-trained SAVAK tortured and murdered thousands.