Through analysis of the five criteria for democracy, and scrutiny of systems theory, political scientists can see that Cuba is on the path to momentous political change due to its rapidly deteriorating, soviet modeled, communist government....
Most Western press coverage about the Internet in Cuba presents the government as holding back its expansion because of political concerns. It is said that the Cuban leadership fears that exposure to democratic ideas and the means of self-organization could be destabilizing for the revolution. Dissident groups and bloggers have argued that the Cuban government deliberately controls access to digital technologies as a means of social control. These blanket statements tend to conflate two sets of concerns: One is the fear of what the government calls “ideological risks,” and the other is the security and privacy issues that have been endemic to the worldwide Internet.
The arrested Cubans were involved in anti-terrorist activities – so cherished by the government of the United States in word – but were acting against the wrong kind of terrorists. Some of what they uncovered about possible terrorist and drug activities of Cuban exiles – including information concerning the 1997 hotel bombings – they actually passed to the FBI, usually delivered via diplomats in Havana. This presumably is what lay behind the statement in the Criminal Complaint that the defendants “attempted manipulation of United States political institutions and government entities through disinformation and pretended cooperation” – i.e., putting every action of the Cuban defendants in the worst possible light.
The costly satellite service made some digital access available for Cubans, but this was limited by various factors. Cuba was in the midst of a period of economic crisis following the collapse of its main trading partner, the Soviet Union, and there were no funds available to invest in Internet infrastructure. Further collaborations were hampered by the aggressive attitude of some in the United States, who periodically accused Cuba of cyberterrorism and digital espionage. (In 1999, for example, Manuel Cereijo, an engineering professor at Florida International University, produced a paper in which he accused the Cuban government of plotting telecommunications espionage against the United States.)
Last November, The New York Times published an editorial calling on the Cuban government to partner with companies such as Google to update its telecommunications infrastructure and expand access to the Internet. The editorial argues that the only thing standing in the way is the Cuban leadership’s lack of political will. In January, the US Federal Communications Commission removed Cuba from its exclusion list, making it possible for companies to provide telecommunications services to Cuba without prior FCC approval. Shortly afterward, Daniel Sepulveda, the deputy assistant secretary of state and the US coordinator for international communications and information policy at the State Department, visited Cuba to discuss how US companies could help to connect Cuba to the Internet. He also reiterated that the main obstacle to improving Cuba’s Internet infrastructure was the unwillingness of the Cuban government to move ahead.
Policies designed to incite revolution, destroy the Cuban economy, and starve the Cuban people seem to be at odds with American ideals of democracy and sovereignty....
political and business leaders were among the earliest practitioners of this new kind of empire, most notably in Cuba at the beginning of the twentieth century.
However, with the transformation of other countries occurring, there are dissident entities in Latin American that refuse to comply with the new political migration.
Maurice Bishop (1944–1983) was the leader of the New Joint Endeavor for Welfare, Education, and Liberation Movement, known as New Jewel Movement (NJM), a Marxist party represented in the Grenadian parliament. In 1979 the NJM staged a coup and seized power. Bishop was named prime minister and led the country with the People's Revolutionary Government (PRG), which banned all political parties. Bishop and the PRG were close to Cuba, an alliance that set them on a collision course with Ronald Reagan's cold war policy. In 1983, following dissension within the party and political and civil unrest, Bishop was killed by some of his former companions. The United States used the ensuing confusion and violence as a pretext to invade the country.
Like Ramon Velasquez case, who was condemn to three years in prison in January 2007, after a “march of dignity” across Cuba to call for respect of human rights and freedom for political prisoners (Imprisoned for “Dangerousness” in Cuba).
Then in Grenada in 1979, the New Jewel Movement, led by Maurice Bishop in concert with the Defence Force, overthrew the elected government of Eric Gairy, a veteran politician who stood accused by his opponents of serious abuse of state power. It was not long before the de facto Prime Minister, Maurice Bishop, announced that a contingent of Cuban personnel would be arriving in Grenada to build a new modern airport. Four years later, Bishop was himself overthrown and murdered by his former colleagues, who took control of the governments of some countries in the Eastern Caribbean and agreed to support and facilitate a U.S. military operation in Grenada. This signaled the start of a new chapter in intra-Caribbean relations and U.S.-Caribbean relations.
While the state censors and restricts Internet usage in order to quell political opposition, the government’s security concerns about handing over its telecommunications infrastructure to a company like Google are real. Particularly in light of the evidence revealed by Edward Snowden about how the US National Security Agency is using the Internet for spying and to engage in surveillance of users—and paying telecom companies for access to their communication networks—ceding control over Cuba’s digital sphere to private US companies could put Cuba at the same risk of insecurity that has occurred in other countries.
These newly independent small states, traditionally tied politically and economically to Europe, now assumed responsibility not just for internal affairs but external relations—including trade, foreign policy, and national security—and thus had to reorient their thinking on a wide range of issues. High on the agenda was the need to function as Caribbean-American states. They became full members of the OAS and of the Inter-American Development Bank. Politically, these countries had come of age when the influence and interest of the U.S. in the Caribbean was at its zenith. After independence the governments of these small states had to deal urgently with the expectations of their people: economic growth, an alleviation of social ills, and an improvement in the standard of living.