VOTE DEMOCRAT FOR GUN CONTROL

If you’re truly pro-life, you should be anti-gun

June is National Gun Violence Awareness Month, a good time to consider America's relationship with guns.

"Non-Violence" (The Knotted Gun) statue by Carl Fredrik Reuterswärd at the United Nations headquarters in New York City. (Photo by Maria Lysenko/Unsplash/Creative Commons)

June 10, 2024

By 

Tony Campolo

(RNS) — In 2022, 48,204 Americans were killed by guns, which are now the leading cause of death among children and teens. Our gun deaths have come to define us in the eyes of the world. You might even say that guns are as American as apple pie. 

Americans constitute less than 5% of the world’s population, but we own half of the world’s guns, making ours the only country where guns outnumber people and leading to firearm homicide rates here that are seven times greater than in Canada, 19 times greater than in France, 33 times greater than in Australia, and 77 times greater than in Germany.

This is American exceptionalism of the most deadly and unimaginable kind, and many people are fed up and want change. According to Pew, 61% of Americans say it is too easy to obtain guns; 69% of Republicans and 90% of Democrats want to increase the minimum age for buying guns to 21 years old; 88% of Republicans and 89% of Democrats support laws preventing those with mental illnesses from purchasing guns.

Yet our legislators do the bidding of the National Shooting Sports Foundation, the National Association for Gun Rights, Gun Owners of America, and the National Rifle Association, which spent $30 million to elect Donald Trump in 2016 and has endorsed him again for 2024.

---

RELATED: Biden calls out ‘poison’ of white supremacy in address at Mother Emanuel in S.C.

---

What is most remarkable is that many of these legislators call themselves pro-life. House Speaker Mike Johnson, a Republican, “pro-life,” “pro-family” evangelical Christian, like most in his tribe, opposes even the most popular, commonsense restrictions on guns.

Johnson was elected speaker the same day a mentally unhealthy gun enthusiast killed 18 people in a bowling alley and bar in Lewiston, Maine. “At the end of the day, the problem is the human heart, it’s not the guns, it’s not weapons,” Johnson told Fox News’ Sean Hannity a day later.

Whenever I hear Christians trot out the “heart” argument to fend off gun restrictions, I want to ask: “Can you please explain? Are American hearts really 77 times darker than German hearts?”

They called Jesus the Prince of Peace, but today’s politically conservative Christians are more likely to own guns than the average American and less likely to support gun legislation. No surprise, they also claim that America’s gun violence epidemic is caused by anything but guns.

“I don’t think guns are the issue,” said Harrison Butker, kicker for Kansas City Chiefs, whose hometown Super Bowl Parade was interrupted by gunfire that killed one and injured 20. “I think we need strong fathers in the home that are being great examples for our youth,” he told Catholic channel EWTN.

One “pro-life” leader, James Dobson, blamed the 2012 killing of 26 people at Sandy Hook Elementary School on God’s judgment against America for accepting abortion and gay marriage. “We have turned our back on the Scripture and on God Almighty and I think he has allowed judgment to fall upon us,” he said.

One “pro-life” group blamed the 2023 shooting that killed six at a Christian school in Nashville on “a woman who identifies as a transgender man,” “some sort of demonic possession” and the fact that the Biden White House “has two men who wear dresses” (an apparent reference to trans people working in the administration). Tennessee legislators rebuffed Christian parents’ pleas for gun control.

“Pro-life” voters regularly vote for representatives who feature AR–15s in their Christmas card photos and who back legislation that would make the AR–15 “the National Gun of the United States.”

Thankfully, Shane Claiborne offers a better approach: “Some say gun violence is a heart problem,” he says. “Others say it’s a gun problem. I believe it’s both.”

Shane was a student of mine at Eastern University, and we’ve worked together over many years on the Red Letter Christians movement, books, tours and other initiatives. Years ago, Shane told me God was calling him to focus on gun violence. I asked him to explain.

“Too many lives that are made in the precious image of God are cut short because of guns,” he told me. “And it doesn’t have to be this way.” He pursued this calling followed with a 2019 book, “Beating Guns,” and a national tour with a Mennonite blacksmith who turned guns into garden tools or musical instruments. Shane also transforms gun advertising into artwork.

Shane now holds near-weekly events in Philadelphia and around the country to remove guns from city streets. The events provide a safe and “sacramental” space for those whose lives have been shattered by gun violence. One mother said: “I understand something I hadn’t understood before. God knows what it feels like to lose a son.”

Shane’s work sounds pretty pro-life to me. I believe that those who want to be truly pro-life need to do more than oppose abortion. They need to make principled, pro-life stances against war, the death penalty, climate change and America’s unusually easy access to guns.

It’s true, guns don’t shoot themselves. People pull triggers. That’s why we should all support laws that keep triggers away from troubled souls like the man who shot up Lewiston.

Guns have held a powerful allure for many since America’s founding, and the socialization process starts early. Children use toy guns to mimic the heroes they see on TV and in movies and video games. Boys with guns pretend to be real men, settling disputes with violence.

---

RELATED: Greeting the Prince of Peace 10 years after Sandy Hook

---

Most adult gun owners cite “protection” as a key concern, but the presence of a gun in the house can endanger all within, particularly one vulnerable group. Year after year, the majority of America’s gun deaths are suicides, not murders. In 2021, 26,328 Americans used guns to kill themselves.

“People who use guns to kill themselves often succeed, so they’re not given a second chance,” says Shane. “People who don’t have access to guns are more likely to survive a first suicide attempt, and to reconsider.”

Tony Campolo. (Courtesy photo)

Perhaps all of us should reconsider our country’s complicated — and deadly — relationship with guns this June as part of National Gun Violence Awareness Month.

(Tony Campolo is professor emeritus of sociology at Eastern University and the author of the forthcoming “Pilgrim: A Theological Memoir,” written with Steve Rabey. The views expressed in this commentary do not necessarily reflect those of Religion News Service.)

WHITE POWER!

The Southern Baptists are meeting in Indianapolis. Here’s why it matters.

More than 11,000 church members are expected to gather in Indianapolis for one of the largest, most influential church meetings of the year.

Registration for the Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis, Indiana, on Monday, June 10, 2024. (RNS photo/Bob Smietana)

June 10, 2024

By 

Bob Smietana

INDIANAPOLIS (RNS) — More than 11,000 Southern Baptist Church members, known as messengers, will gather in Indianapolis this week for one of the largest, and sometimes noisiest, religious meetings of the year.

The Southern Baptist Convention’s annual gathering is part family reunion, part business meeting and part church service, mixing singing and sermons with business reports and elections — quotes from “Robert’s Rules of Order” are as common as Bible verses.

With organized religion on the decline and fewer Americans putting faith in churches and their institutions, a denominational meeting may seem passé — a relic from the past that no longer matters.

Still, here’s why you might want to pay attention.

Southern Baptists remain a powerful faith community  

Though it has fallen on hard times in recent years — with membership in decline and an ongoing abuse crisis — the 12.9 million-member SBC remains one of the most influential faith groups in the country.

Through its six seminaries, the denomination trains more pastors than any other faith group in the country. Even pastors who aren’t SBC go to Southern Baptist seminaries, giving the denomination the opportunity to shape the message delivered in all kinds of churches. Its publishing arm, Lifeway, produces Bible studies and kids’ curricula used in churches nationwide. The SBC also runs one of the nation’s largest disaster relief volunteer forces that plays a key role in helping communities recover when tornadoes or other disasters strike. And its thousands of missionaries influence how the Christian faith — or at least the Protestant variety — is spread and practiced around the world. 

Other non-denominational churches often follow where the SBC leads — especially its pronouncements about social issues, theology and church life.

Messengers vote during the 2023 Southern Baptist Convention annual meeting in New Orleans, June 13, 2023. (RNS photo/Emily Kask)

Southern Baptists vote

Donald Trump made a virtual appearance during one of the side events in Indianapolis. His former VP, Mike Pence, will also be there. While the two are no longer on the same page, they both know that Southern Baptists remain a vital part of the GOP’s evangelical voting bloc. 

The meeting where Trump spoke was sponsored by the Danbury Institute, a new group that seeks to promote “Judeo-Christian values as the proper foundation for a free and prosperous republic.” Among other speakers was Southern Baptist Theological Seminary President Al Mohler, one of the denomination’s most influential leaders — who once denounced Trump and swore never to support him and then backed his 2020 run for office. (Mohler once tweeted “Never. Ever. Period” about Trump, a pledge that did not last long.)

Southern Baptists are also eager to shape public policy — they backed the fall of Roe v. Wade, have advocated for restrictions on in vitro fertilization, want to see immigration reform and support aid to both Israel and Ukraine.

This year, they will consider resolutions on several issues: condemning IVF; calling on their leaders to be more ethical; defending the war in Israel; and condemning the use of NDAs “that oppress or harm individuals, promote unnecessary secrecy, or deter accountability.”

---

RELATED: Dissent from Traditional Plan dominates United Methodists’ top court meeting

---

Earlier this year, Baptist leaders wrote to House Speaker Mike Johnson — who is a member of an SBC church and was a trustee of an SBC agency — and urged him to support aid for Ukraine. 

Southern Baptists might be one of the few religious denominations that has the clout, confidence and influence to convince millions of churchgoers to shape politics and culture. 

Southern Baptists will make a key decision about women leaders this week

Southern Baptist churches have long relied on women to teach Sunday School, lead outreach ministries and do all the behind-the-scenes work to keep their congregations running smoothly. Southern Baptists also raise hundreds of millions of dollars every year in the names of legendary missionaries Lottie Moon and Annie Armstrong. But they have also banned women from the pastorate — especially serving as senior pastor of a church. 

Now they may go further. A proposed constitutional amendment would ban churches where any woman has the title of pastor, even in a supporting role such as working with kids or music or women’s groups. The SBC kicked out five churches last year — including Saddleback Community Church, one of the nation’s biggest churches — that had women in senior leadership roles. Passing this new rule, known as the “Law Amendment,” could lead to hundreds or thousands of churches leaving the SBC.   

The potential fallout has led some church leaders to oppose the amendment. While they believe only men should be pastors, these leaders, including several running for SBC president, say it is unneeded and could have unintended consequences. 

Southern Baptists will make key decisions about abuse reform 

Two years ago, after a major investigation showed denominational leaders had mistreated abuse survivors and sought to downplay how often sexual abuse happens in churches, Southern Baptists voted in a series of key reforms designed to help churches prevent abuse and respond better when it happens.

Those reforms and the crisis that prompted them made national headlines and led to promises that things had changed. But the reforms have stalled, and, two years later, a task force charged with implementing reforms has made little progress. 

At the Indianapolis meeting, the messengers will once again get to have their say. Will they press their leaders to make reforms stick or let them fall by the wayside? And will Southern Baptists find the money and resources needed to address abuse over the long term or will they decide the cost is too high? 

The Southern Baptists’ annual meeting runs June 11-12 at the Indiana Convention Center in Indianapolis. 

---

RELATED:   Meet the six preachers who want to lead the Southern Baptist Convention

Teamsters and Amazon Labor Union Announce Affiliation, Member Vote Still Ahead

By Luis Feliz León

June 5, 2024

Source: Labor Notes
F




The Amazon Labor Union and the Teamsters have signed an affiliation agreement.

“Today is an historical day for labor in America as we now combine forces with one of the most powerful unions to take on Amazon together,” wrote ALU President Chris Smalls on Twitter, now called X. “We’re putting Amazon on notice that we are coming!”

Smalls and Teamsters President Sean O’Brien signed the agreement on June 3, according to a copy obtained by Labor Notes.

The affiliation agreement charters a new local known as Amazon Labor Union No. 1, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (ALU-IBT Local 1) for the five boroughs of New York City. That may signal that Amazon workers will not be integrated into existing locals with other Teamster crafts.

The ALU is the fledgling independent union that sent shock waves through the labor movement two years ago when it won a landmark election to organize 8,000 workers at Amazon fulfillment center JFK8 on Staten Island, New York.

The Teamsters announced the affiliation in a tweet, saying the agreement had been approved unanimously by its board. The ALU’s rank and file hasn’t yet voted on it.
SURPRISE ANNOUNCEMENT

The union’s reform caucus supports the affiliation, but was surprised that the Teamsters had announced the news publicly before rank-and-file members had voted.

“Ultimately, the agreement reflects what we would have wanted out of this process,” said Connor Spence, who’s running for president of the ALU and was one of the key organizers of the successful union drive at JFK8. “We would have liked a different timeline, namely holding the vote after the leadership elections, but we’re going to organize in support of the agreement either way.”

Leaders of the Amazon Labor Union Democratic Reform Caucus, including Connor Spence, Brima Sylla, Kathleen Cole, and Sultana Hossain, and current and former members of the ALU Executive Board, including Derrick Palmer, Gerald Bryson, Claudia Ashterman, and Arlene Kingston, met with O’Brien and other Teamster officials in Washington, D.C., on May 20, after weeks of conversations about what an affiliation would involve.

Since its blockbuster win in 2022, ALU’s efforts to make inroads at other Amazon facilities have gone down in defeat. The union has also faltered in efforts to bring Amazon to the bargaining table.

These organizing failures gave rise to the caucus, which won the right to hold democratic elections for the union’s top spots.

As the ALU struggled to advance further at Amazon, workers at the air cargo hub KCVG in Northern Kentucky voted to affiliate with the Teamsters in April and will redo their ALU union affiliation cards. They made the decision after the tug and ramp workers at a nearby DHL facility joined the Teamsters and won a lucrative first contract in January.

Teamsters launched an Amazon Division last year to bring together various Amazon organizing efforts under one big tent.

“If we’re going to bring Amazon to the table, we need to build a national movement of Amazon workers who are strike-ready,” said Spence. “Trying to build that without some kind of institutional backing is a long shot.”

Amazon Teamsters have extended picket lines to other Amazon facilities after the Teamsters organized delivery drivers in Palmdale, California, last April. These 84 workers were nominally employed by an Amazon contractor, the Southern California company Battle-Tested Strategies—one of 2,500 “delivery service partners” that carry out package deliveries while Amazon retains full control.

Since then, more of the independent groups organizing at Amazon have worked with the Teamsters, hoping its backing can help them organize their own facilities.
NEW ELECTIONS

ALU will hold officer elections in July at the JFK8 facility. Eligible voters will include all current employees who are not seasonal workers. The affiliation agreement says the Teamsters “will provide resources to effectuate an internal election for ALU-IBT Local 1 in a manner so that potential officers may reach, with equal access, as many eligible members in JKF8 as possible.”

The internal election became possible only after the ALU’s reform caucus sued the union last year for violating the ALU’s constitution because it “refused to hold officer elections which should have been scheduled no later than March 2023.”

The ALU was supposed to hold elections within 60 days after the National Labor Relations Board certified the union. But before the NLRB certification, the union’s leadership presented a new constitution to the membership, changing the timeframe for officer elections to after the union ratified a contract with Amazon. The reform caucus asked a Brooklyn court to compel union leaders to hold an election.

“For Us Cubans, Africa is Our Heart, Our Blood”

By Víctor Dreke, Salim Lamrani

June 4, 2024

Source: Originally published by Z. Feel free to share widely.


Image by Tumpatumcla~commonswiki, Creative Commons 4.0


Born into a modest family in Sagua la Grande in 1937, Víctor Dreke experienced first-hand the realities of pre-revolutionary Cuba, marked by poverty, racism and discrimination of all kinds. He frequented working-class circles, particularly the sugar industry, which was very present in his native region, and identified with their demands for social justice. At the same time, he became his school’s student representative, voicing the concerns of his generation.

On March 10, 1952, he had just turned fifteen when General Fulgencio Batista orchestrated a coup d’état that shattered the constitutional order and installed a military dictatorship that would last six long years. He discovered the figure of Fidel Castro following the attack on the Moncada barracks in Santiago de Cuba on July 26, 1953, and immediately identified with his cause, defended in his plea/recquisitory known as “History will acquit me”.

With the outbreak of the armed struggle in the Sierra Maestra on December 2, 1956, following the landing of revolutionaries on the island, Víctor Dreke also went underground in the central region of the country. There he met Che Guevara and took part in the final battle at Santa Clara in December 1958.

With the advent of the Cuban Revolution on January 1, 1959, Víctor Dreke was appointed prosecutor of the Revolutionary Tribunals charged with judging the blood crimes committed by the former regime. He also took part in the fight against armed counter-revolutionary groups in the Sierra del Escambray, and confronted the U.S.-organized invasion of the Bay of Pigs.

In 1965, he was asked by senior government officials to organize a group of volunteer fighters to help the guerrillas in the Congo, in the company of Che Guevara. He also led various internationalist missions to Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde at the request of Amilcar Cabral, who was then waging a war of national liberation against Portuguese colonialism. Today, as President of the Cuba-Africa Friendship Association, Víctor Dreke looks back on his history and discusses the links between the Caribbean island and the cradle of humanity.

Salim Lamrani: What memories do you have of your childhood and youth?

Víctor Dreke: I was born on March 10, 1937 in a town called Sagua la Grande in the former province of Las Villas, now called Villa Clara. It was a prosperous area at the time. I’m the youngest of a blended family.

My family was called Castillo Dreke, which was my father’s name. My mother Catalina Mora came from a village called Sierra Morena, near Sagua la Grande. I could have been named Castillo, as one of my brothers was, but my father chose to give me the name Dreke.

I must say that I was a lucky child in the midst of the misery that afflicted the country at the time. My mother Catalina, who gave birth to me, and my adoptive mother Felicia, who raised me, took great care of me. My family was poor, and we lived in a small house with a guano roof on Calle Agramonte no. 30 in Sagua la Grande. I wasn’t a bad kid and I must say I was well educated. I also remember that when I visited my friends at lunchtime and was asked if I’d eaten, I was taught to always answer the same thing – that I’d already eaten and wasn’t hungry, even if it wasn’t true. That was our upbringing.

Like all children my age, I made a few mistakes, but I wasn’t naughty. My full name is Victor Emilio and my childhood friends called me “Emilito”. If I compare myself with today’s kids, I was a kid without much education. I went to a private school that had to be paid for, run by nuns, and I remember that we had to pray on Fridays. However, for family reasons, I wasn’t baptized until I was an adult. I wasn’t a bad student, but I wasn’t brilliant.

SL: Do you remember Fulgencio Batista’s coup d’état on March 10, 1952?

VD: I remember it perfectly, because it was my birthday, my 15th. With a group of young people, we went out into the streets to demonstrate against the coup. We were arrested by the police, who took us to the station before releasing us. I can say that my commitment as an aspiring revolutionary began at that precise date.

My father would go out of his way to explain to me the situation the country was in. He was sympathetic to the Authentic Party of Ramón Grau San Martín and Carlos Prío Socarrás, without being very political. He had previously been linked to the Liberal Party. He was a fish salesman and thought that all politicians were the same, prolix when it came to making electoral promises, but far less inspired when it came to adopting measures for the common good. My older brother Mario was a militant of Eduardo Chibás’ Orthodox Party.

As for me, I didn’t belong to any party. I wasn’t a Marxist. In fact, at the time, I’d heard nothing but negative things about communism. I took part in workers’ strikes in the sugar industry. There were a lot of sugar factories in the province. I was also a student representative at the José Marti Boys’ High School in Sagua la Grande. So, I became politicized in this way, militating with workers and students. I was resolutely opposed to the dictatorship, which murdered opponents and plunged the people into untold misery. I remember the police telling us that black people couldn’t be revolutionaries. I used to tremble with indignation.

SL: How did racism manifest itself in Cuba under Batista’s military regime?

VR: We were discriminated against because of our skin color. We had fewer rights. The same applied to women in relation to men: they suffered the oppression of a patriarchal society.

I became a revolutionary for three fundamental reasons. Firstly, because I was poor and had to fight to provide for my basic needs. Secondly, because I was young, because youth is always rebellious. Finally, because I was black and suffered from racism.

SL: What do you remember of the attack on the Moncada barracks by Fidel Castro and his companions on July 26, 1953?

VD: My revolutionary commitment predates the emergence of Fidel Castro’s July 26 Movement. We were very attached to the figure and ideals of Antonio Guiteras, who had been the soul of the 1933 Revolution and who had been assassinated by Batista. We had a movement called Acción Guiteras and we organized a ceremony in his honor every May 8, the day of his death. Each time, we were repressed by the police and pelted with stones. In those days, my fervor was called Guiteras. We were also followers of Rafael García Bárcena, a philosophy professor opposed to Batista who had founded the Movimiento Nacional Revolucionario.

I didn’t know Fidel. I found out about him during the attack on the Moncada barracks. Fidel’s revolutionary action took place in the centenary year of the birth of José Marti, our national hero. I remember his plea “History will acquit me”, in which he denounced the situation of the country, racial discrimination, illiteracy, misery and injustice of all kinds. I was deeply moved by his undertaking, in which he risked his own life, and by his speech, which was both a plea for his revolutionary action and an indictment of the Batista dictatorship. He pledged to redress all injustices once the Revolution was victorious. I immediately identified with his line. Our generation had finally found its leader.

SL: When did you decide to join the armed struggle after Fidel Castro landed on the island in December 1956?

VD: Within the workers’ movement, there was a tendency in favor of armed struggle led by Victor Bordón Machado, who would later become Commander. I joined this group, which was more in line with my sensibility, and was appointed head of “Action and Sabotage” for the July 26 Movement, initially in 1957, in the Santa Clara area of Escambray. We had few weapons and had to obtain them from the enemy.

Later, as a student, I joined the Directorio Revolucionario and operated in the capital. There were two aspects to the Directorio’s involvement: the clandestine struggle in the cities and the armed struggle in the Sierra.

It should be remembered that most of the revolutionaries, starting with Fidel Castro, came from the university, which was the epicenter of the emancipatory process. There was a subsequent rapprochement between the July 26 Movement and the Directorio. At the end of the war, I was no longer a member of the Directorio but a member of the Revolution.

SL: When did you first meet Che Guevara?

VD: I met Che in October 1958, when he arrived in Escambray. He had come to visit us at the Directorio Headquarters to see Faure Chomón, our commander. He arrived with his legendary column of guerrillas, who were respected by all because they had crossed the whole island on foot at the cost of a titanic effort, following Fidel’s directives.

I remember that, in anticipation of Che’s arrival, we attacked two places: Fomento and Placeta. It was a Sunday in torrential rain. Our aim was to mobilize the army’s attention so that the column could arrive safely in Escambray. I was wounded at Placetas. Our contribution was modest and symbolic, but it was enough to enable Che to carry out his mission.

Che had made a great impression on me. He arrived at the camp where I was, wounded, and I remember he asked me if he could use the typewriter. It made a big impression on us, because our orders were to be at Che’s service. He was very courteous. In Santa Clara, people didn’t really know who this Argentinian was who had come to fight for our cause. We were reliving the story of Máximo Gomez, the Dominican who fought alongside us in the Second War of Independence. It was quite a symbol.

SL: When the Revolution triumphed in 1959, you were appointed prosecutor of the Revolutionary Courts. What was the aim of these institutions, which dispensed expeditious justice?

VD: The aim was to try people who had committed crimes. During the Batista dictatorship, 20,000 Cubans were murdered, often in atrocious conditions, by the tyranny’s henchmen. Our great concern was that the families and friends of these people cowardly murdered, and the relatives of the women who had been raped, should see justice done themselves. We didn’t want the people to lynch these individuals in the streets. There were only two options: either create the revolutionary courts and apply the law, or let the people take care of the criminals. We had experience of what had happened elsewhere, notably in Europe at the end of the Second World War, and we didn’t want extra-judicial executions.

One of the characteristics of our Revolution is that there were no massacres when the military regime fell. There was no revenge. Fidel was very clear on this point, asking the people to trust the courts to deliver justice.

As far as I’m concerned, after taking part in the fighting that led to the capture of Santa Clara, as leader of Squadron 31, I went to Havana to see my family. The Revolution then sought my help as prosecutor for the newly-created Revolutionary Courts. I returned to Santa Clara where, in addition to my role as prosecutor, I was a member of the High Council responsible for analyzing all decisions taken by the Revolutionary Courts, in order to avoid errors and unnecessary sentences. We were particularly attentive to the dignity of the accused. They had the right to a lawyer. They were never mistreated, and we allowed family visits. It wasn’t easy to see a little girl visit her father who had been sentenced to death. But the law had to be applied. We remembered the crimes committed by these same people.

SL: You took part in the fight against the counter-revolutionary groups that sprang up, particularly in the Escambray mountains, following the advent of the Revolution. How did the fight against these individuals unfold?

VD: As early as 1959, there were armed groups supported by the United States who were conspiring against the Revolution. It’s important to remember that the Eisenhower administration supported Batista right up to the very end, by sending him arms. In Escambray, there were armed groups attacking peasants, most of whom were in favor of the Revolution, and teachers involved in the literacy campaign. These men were preparing the ground for the coming invasion. Their aim was to create a bridgehead. The strategic plan was to organize an internal uprising during a future landing to support the invaders. You can’t separate Playa Girón, or the Bay of Pigs, from the Escambray counter-revolutionary struggle.

Fidel Castro, our Commander-in-Chief, therefore took the decision to counter-attack and liquidate these Yankee government-backed groups, which were mainly located in Escambray, but also in the Eastern Province and Pinar del Río. We carried out a major sweep and neutralized most of these groups before the invasion of April 1961. Our State Security apparatus had infiltrated these bandit groups. The struggle lasted until 1965.

SL: In April 1961, the United States and the CIA orchestrated the Bay of Pigs invasion. You personally took part in the fighting. Can you tell us about these events?

VD: Before the invasion of April 1961, there had been sabotage, acts of terrorism such as the explosion of the La Coubre boat in March 1960, which cost the lives of nearly a hundred people, and aerial bombardments from Florida, etc.

On the day of the invasion, I was driving towards Santiago de Cuba. When I arrived in Santa Clara at the headquarters of the Revolutionary Armed Forces, everyone was on a war footing and I was informed that an invasion had taken place: “The Americans have landed!” That was the rumor going around the island at the time. We later learned that they were Cuban renegades in the pay of the United States, not conventional troops. I asked where the landing had taken place and was told “Playa Girón”. I had absolutely no idea of the place. I’d never been there.

I joined the platoon and we headed for Girón. We entered through Yaguaramas. From the very first moments of the invasion, Fidel was in the front line of the fighting. It gave us moral strength. He appeared with his rifle on his shoulder, like all the fighters, and didn’t just give a speech in Havana’s Revolution Square. He was accompanied by other commanders. All the inhabitants of the area rose up against the invaders, while the United States thought that the people would turn against the revolutionary government. Several battalions that had been fighting the bandits in Escambray joined the struggle. In less than 72 hours, the mercenaries were crushed by the people in arms.

SL: You took part in Che Guevara’s guerrilla war in the Congo. How did this project come about?

VD: I had the historic opportunity to take part in guerrilla warfare alongside Che in Africa, in Congo Kinshasa. Joseph Désiré Kabila’s Mouvement de Libération had asked for our help, following the assassination of Patrice Lumumba by the United States and Belgium. He needed to train his staff and send some thirty officers to us for military training. Fidel agreed, but suggested that the Cubans go directly to the area to train the militants under real conditions, while taking part in the fighting against the Mobutu regime. It was the best thing to do for us and for them.

When we arrived in the Congo, we realized that Fidel was right. The geographical characteristics of the country were different from those of Cuba. We realized this during the preparation stage. In Cuba, for example, you could climb a tree to look into the distance and watch for enemy troop movements. In the Congo, this was impossible because of the dense vegetation. It was impossible to see into the distance. We discovered these specificities on the spot.

SL: What was the selection process like?

VD: There were 130 advisors in all. All were volunteers. Fidel, Raúl, Commandant Piñeros and Osmany Cienfuegos put me in charge of preparing the group for departure. My nom de guerre was Roberto for the Cubans. Nobody knew that Che was going to join the group, not even me. I remember that Osmany Cienfuegos came to see me with several photos of Che shaved and made-up by our specialists. He looked nothing like the Che I knew. Osmany said to me: “This is the Commander Ramón you know”. I told him I’d never seen him before in my life. All the commanders knew each other. I was a commander myself. We met regularly for various tasks.

One day, while I was in camp, I was picked up and we went to a house where there were various comrades-in-arms. I was sitting at the table when I saw Osmany approaching with the gentleman in the photo. I stood up, as my father had taught me. He always told me: “You must always stand up to greet people if they have good intentions, and to be able to defend yourself if they approach with hostile intentions”. So, I greeted Commander Ramon, who had a cigar in his mouth. Osmany insisted: “I’m telling you, you know him”. I racked my brains trying to remember who this individual was, without success. Then “Ramon” spoke up and said “Osmany, stop bothering Dreke”. It was only then that I recognized Che.

SL: How did the operations in the Congo go? Che spoke of failure.

VD: The great difficulty we faced was the lack of unity among the country’s revolutionary forces. There were many divisions between the different factions. We decided to form a first company under Tamayo’s leadership, which left for several weeks to carry out combat actions. We then formed a second column under my command. But there were too many difficulties. When we arrived, the enemy had already infiltrated the troops, and the idea was already spreading of seeking a peaceful settlement and abandoning the path of arms.

I don’t share Che’s opinion. For me, the Congo operation was not a failure. We had to adapt to the realities of the country and follow the orders of the Congolese chiefs. Che was not the guerrilla leader. He had to follow the directives of the local leaders. Che was the leader of the Cuban internationalist group. We had no decision-making power. We thought that the Congolese leaders should act as Fidel and Raul had done, with rifle on shoulder, in combat with the troops. In our military doctrine, in our combat philosophy, the leader is always with his troops, on the front line, facing danger and setting an example. But this was not the case in the Congo. Kabila had a different vision of things. Fidel had insisted that we follow the directives of the Congolese and never impose our point of view. We expressed our opinion and let the country’s leaders make the decisions.

Far from being a failure, the Congo operation helped other peoples in struggle to understand how to wage war against colonialism, and what mistakes not to make, whether in Angola or Guinea-Bissau. Our attitude was exemplary, and six of our comrades fell fighting in the Congo. It was an example that will go down in history, particularly in African history. Che is part of African history.

The Congo venture was not a failure. We were able to convince our African brothers that we could conquer freedom through arms.

SL: What does the figure of Che mean to you and to the Cuban people?

VD: Che was a noble soul. We often talk about the guerrilla, but first and foremost he was a noble soul. He was a man of great generosity. You don’t give up what’s dearest to you – your family, your country, your friends, your well-being – if you’re not made of greatness. He was a just man, energetic, firm, an example, who never mistreated anyone, least of all prisoners.

The Cuban people venerate Che even more than when he was alive. Even young people, who never knew him, have great respect for his figure. When you mention his name, you have to discover yourself, in memory of his history and his sacrifice for the cause of the humble.

SL: After the Congo, you headed the military mission to Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, where Amilcar Cabral led the armed struggle against Portuguese colonialism. Tell us about that experience.

VD: After the Congo, we lent our support to the national liberation struggle of the people of Guinea Bissau. Sékou Touré, the first President of Guinea, played an important role in the decolonization of Africa. He gave us great support during our missions on the continent. We trained the militia in Conakry to prevent a coup d’état against Touré by the Portuguese. Touré was courageous and supportive of Amilcar Cabral.

In Guinea Bissau, the situation was different from that in Congo. After the 1966 Tricontinental Conference in Havana, Amilcar Cabral asked for our help and technical support. He didn’t want the Cubans to take part in the fighting.

Amilcar Cabral was one of the most clear-sighted revolutionary leaders of his time, as demonstrated at the Tricontinental Conference, where he spoke out in favor of armed struggle. He had a solid intellectual training. Jorge Risquet, our man in Africa, had met him in Congo Brazzaville and was impressed by his vision. Risquet offered him men, but Amilcar refused, stressing that he only needed trainers and advisers, as it was up to the Guineans themselves to liberate their own country. “We must make our own revolution”, he said. He wanted to prepare the country’s future by training his people to assume the responsibilities of independence. Amilcar had achieved the feat of uniting his people under the flag of independence, no easy feat, in both Guinea Bissau and Cape Verde, two distinct and non-bordering territories almost 1,000 kilometers apart. His father was Cape Verdean and his mother Guinean. Unfortunately, Amilcar Cabral was assassinated by traitors in the pay of Lisbon, a few months before his homeland gained independence.

SL: What motivates an internationalist to carry out a mission far from his native land, with all the sacrifices that entails?

VD: First and foremost, it’s a call from the heart. When we see the misery, oppression and poverty that strike the most vulnerable, we can’t remain insensitive. Deep down, we feel a moral imperative to act to help these peoples in their struggle for dignity. That’s why, in addition to my military missions, I ran an internationalist school in Cuba. Later, I led construction projects in Africa, in Guinea Bissau, Cape Verde, Mozambique and Angola.

It must be stressed that we have always intervened at the request of the people. We have never imposed our presence on anyone. We went to the Congo at the request of Kabila’s revolutionaries and left the country when they considered that our mission had come to an end. It’s important to remember this. Che did not leave the Congo of his own accord. He didn’t abandon the National Liberation Movement. We left because Kabila asked us to leave the country.

SL: Did you visit Algeria during this period?

VD: I went to Algiers in 1967 and even met President Houari Boumediene. It was our first visit since 1965 and Ben Bella’s departure from power. I remember that Boumediene asked me to convey a message of solidarity to Fidel. We’ve always had great relations with Algeria, especially with Ben Bella. We have great respect for the Algerians. Unity between Cuba and Algeria has been very strong. We can’t forget the ties, particularly during the early years of the Cuban Revolution and the first years of Algerian independence. The 1960s were revolutionary and glorious.

SL: What did you do when you returned to Cuba, and what is your position today?

VD: I joined the Armed Forces in various units. I was head of construction. I founded the Juvenile Labor Army in the eastern region, which was in charge of agricultural production, particularly for crops such as sugar cane and coffee. I was also Head of the Central Political Directorate of the Armed Forces.

Today, I’m President of the Cuba-Africa Friendship Association. For us Cubans, Africa is the symbol of the resistance of a people, a continent, that has been mistreated, bullied and resisted. Today, the peoples of Africa are saying “no” to the powerful, which wasn’t obvious back then, with the exception of a few leaders like Sékou Touré or Ahmed Ben Bella. Our people are descended from enslaved Africans, torn from their homeland to be exploited in America. Our culture is African. How many Africans have died in Cuba? You can’t separate Cuba from Africa. For us Cubans, Africa is our heart, our blood.

SL: Last question: what does Fidel Castro mean to Cubans?

VD: I’ve had two fathers in my life: Dreke Castillo and Fidel Castro. That’s what Fidel means to me. He taught me to have a line of conduct, honor and principles. He taught me that you always have to get up after you’ve fallen. That’s why we’ve been resisting the criminal economic blockade imposed on us by the United States for decades. Fidel taught us to stand our ground when the going gets tough, and to never give up under any circumstances. For this, we can count on the support of the peoples of Africa and beyond.

US-Backed Ukrainian Publication Releases New ‘Enemies List’

by Daniel McAdams Posted onJune 10, 2024

The US government-affiliated Ukrainian web publication “Data Journalism Agency” (TEXTY) has just released a report attacking hundreds of prominent American individuals and organizations as enemies for not supporting sending more US money and weapons to Ukraine.

The report, titled “Roller Coaster: From Trumpists to Communists. The forces in the U.S. impeding aid to Ukraine and how they do it,” intends to smear American politicians, journalists, and social media influencers as tools of Russia, writing:

Most of the people in our study do not have direct, proven ties to the Russian government or propagandists. However, the arguments they use to urge authorities to distance themselves from Ukraine echo key messages of Russian propaganda aimed at depriving Ukrainians of the ability to defend themselves with Western weapons and funds. (emphasis added)

Although the “enemies list” purports to correct disinformation about Ukraine spread by those on its list, the report itself is full of crude disinformation. For example this bit:

Even long-debunked myths continue to surface, such as claims of Nazi dominance and American Biolabs in Ukraine and the portrayal of the 2014 Revolution of Dignity as a coup.

The organization’s assertion that these claims are “long-debunked” may be wishful thinking, but back on planet reality even mainstream, pro-Ukraine media sites in the US wring their hands over the disturbing, extremist images coming out of the country. For example, NBC News wrote that, “Ukraine’s Nazi problem is real, even if Putin’s ‘denazification’ claim isn’t.” Newsweek wondered, “Why Have So Many Neo-Nazis Rallied to Ukraine’s Cause?” Even before the current conflict, mainstream pro-Ukraine publications such as Reuters worried in 2918 about “Ukraine’s neo-Nazi problem.”

As to the biolabs, none other than Mother of the Maidan Victoria Nuland admitted in a US Senate hearing that there were biolabs in Ukraine. Ah, but one may counter that these were not “American biolabs.” In fact with the authenticity of Hunter Biden’s infamous laptop now absolutely confirmed during his trial, a report by the New York Post two years ago based on the laptop also must be considered accurate. According to the article, “Russia’s assertion that President Biden’s son Hunter was ‘financing… biological laboratories in Ukraine’ was based in truth, according to e-mails reviewed by The Post.”

And on whether the Maidan events of 2014 were a “Revolution of Dignity” or a coup, we again only need turn to Victoria Nuland’s infamous phone call with US Ambassador to Kiev, Geoffrey Pyatt, for all the evidence needed that the US was micromanaging the removal of an elected leader and replacing him with hand-picked US puppets.

The report also includes such prominent American politicians and journalists as Sen. JD Vance, Sen. Rand Paul, Rep. Matt Gaetz, Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene, Rep. Jim Jordan, and Col. Douglas Macgregor.

Even our friends at Antiwar.com… and your own correspondent (!) find ourselves appearing on the Ukrainian “enemies list”:

As the report states:

There are 391 individuals and 76 organizations in our list. These include politicians, political movements and groups, media and journalists, experts, and think tanks (some individuals appear in multiple categories).

Perhaps what is most shocking about this attack on American citizens is the fact that the Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) has a long affiliation with the US Government itself! In fact, the founder of the publication Anatoly Bondarenko appears prominently on a US Government website as a participant in the US State Department’s “TechCamp” project.

The Data Journalism Agency (TEXTY) is listed as an “Implementing Partner” of the US Agency for International Development’s Transparency and Accountability in Public Administration and Services/ TAPAS Project.

The Ukrainians seemingly love to make lists of their “enemies.” One of their most notorious of these is the infamous “kill list” put out by the Mirotvorets Center in Kiev. From that list several have already been murdered by Ukraine, including prominent Russian journalist Daria Dugina.

One wonders how, for example, former US President Donald Trump and dozens of members of the US Congress will react when they hear that US tax dollars are being sent to Ukraine for US-backed Ukrainian organizations to make “hate lists” and “kill lists” of patriotic Americans like themselves.

Daniel McAdams is Executive Director of the Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity and co-Producer/co-Host, Ron Paul Liberty Report. Daniel served as the foreign affairs, civil liberties, and defense/intel policy advisor to U.S. Congressman Ron Paul, MD (R-Texas) from 2001 until Dr. Paul’s retirement at the end of 2012. From 1993-1999 he worked as a journalist based in Budapest, Hungary, and traveled through the former communist bloc as a human rights monitor and election observer. Reprinted from The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity.

How the US is Scrambling to Stop Ukraine Peace Plan by China & Brazil w/ Vijay Prashad

By Vijay Prashad, Eugene Puryear , Rania Khalek 

June 5, 2024

Source: BreakThrough News

While world leaders prepare to convene in Switzerland for a “peace summit” ostensibly called to advance peace in Ukraine despite excluding Russia from the meeting, Brazil and China have proposed an alternative. Both countries released a joint statement calling for an international peace conference with equal participation from both Russia and Ukraine. Vijay Prashad, the Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute, calls the Switzerland summit a “facade” and explains how the US and NATO are thwarting any real chances for peace.ussia and Ukraine. Vijay Prashad, the Executive Director of the Tricontinental Institute, calls the Switzerland summit a “facade” and explains how the US and NATO are thwarting any real chances for peace.

Zelensky’s Peace Summit Is Just an Echo Chamber

The Ukrainian President will use his platform in Switzerland to hector his supporters to send more weapons and money to Kyiv

by Ian Proud Posted onJune 10, 2024

In one of his more bizarre outbursts, Volodymir Zelensky, red of face, jabbing his finger, recently accused China of being “an instrument in the hands of Putin”. He said this at the recent Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore as part of a world tour, in which he is encouraging participation at what Ukraine calls the Global Peace Summit.  This will take place in Switzerland from 15-16 June, and China has said it will not attend. Zelensky was treading a now well-worn path in which he and other senior Ukrainian figures insult countries that don’t bend to Ukraine’s demands for support in the war with Russia.

He believes that China has been discouraging countries from attending the Summit but provided no evidence of this.  Some reports suggest that up to 107 States may attend.  Although, in addition to Xi Jinping, there’s a chance Joe Biden may also not attend because of a fund-raiser in Texas.  Those who do send country delegations will undoubtedly enjoy the comforts of the Bürgenstock Resort on the shores of Lake Lucerne.  Though I suspect many will be confused about the purpose of the event.

For, despite its billing, this won’t be a Global Summit. If it was, it would undoubtedly look at the appalling situation in Israel and Gaza, and no doubt other conflict hotspots across the world too. It might consider more broadly how to strengthen the adherence of states to their obligations under the UN Charter or review progress in strengthening international peacebuilding architecture. But it won’t do those things.

Indeed, the Swiss Government, which is hosting, refers to it as the Summit on Peace in Ukraine.  Although it isn’t clear that Switzerland is in charge, as most of the press reporting about invitations appears to issue from Zelensky’s office. So this raises a diplomatic question as to the precise scope of the event itself?  Summits are normally hosted by the countries in which they take place; those countries shape the agenda and try to steer a communique that represents the best outcome of what can be agreed among the parties. In this case, there appears to be a diplomatic tug of love between the Swiss and the Ukrainians about who is running the show.

For Ukraine, the Summit is explicitly an opportunity to push Zelensky’s so-called ten-point peace formula, which is essentially the points he made in a speech at UNGA.  The formula does contain some helpful lines on nuclear safety, food and energy security and environmental protection.  But it also contains three points that are probably unachievable.  Namely, the full restoration of Ukraine’s territorial integrity, by which it means Ukraine’s border pre-2014.  This, according to Zelensky, ‘is not up to negotiations’. Secondly, the full withdrawal of Russia’s military and, third, the establishment of a tribunal to investigate alleged Russian war crimes.

However, Ukraine’s pre-2014 border won’t be restored because the west tacitly gave up on Crimea in 2014 and focussed its energy instead on attempts to mediate a peace in the Donbass. These attempts notably included the Franco-German orchestrated Normandy format, which failed in the teeth of US and UK interference; namely, the locking in of sanctions against Russia under an unattainable notion of full Minsk II implementation. European leaders won’t commit to a plan where retaking Crimea is a key element, indeed, western war aims in Ukraine are now completely unclear, beyond helping Ukraine to hold on from further territorial losses.

Even though hardline and now sidelined figures like Boris Johnson and Liz Truss have long supported the aspiration to re-take Crimea, Ukraine does not now and will never have the military capabilities to do so.  So the second and related aspiration of the full withdrawal of Russian troops is also unrealistic, however the map is drawn. Using western weapons to strike targets in the west of Russia won’t change the balance of power on the battlefield in Ukraine which favours Russia. It also won’t decisively shift Russian public opinion away from support for Putin in this war. Rather, it will ramp up the risk of escalation by Russia, which has still not committed its forces to the fight in Ukraine, in any numbers.

While there is clearly a need to investigate allegations of war crimes committed by Russian forces during the war, the west will struggle to deliver this, not least because of the inevitable pressure to consider allegations of war crimes committed by Ukrainian forces.  And as neither Ukraine nor Russia are signatories to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, neither country would recognise the legitimacy of any investigation should it materialise.  That would render the endeavour toothless in the absence of more coercive measures to hold either country to account under international law.

So, Zelensky’s plan is nothing more than Ukraine’s maximalist position that will inevitably be bargained down in any future peace negotiations that take place with Russia.

But, and here’s the rub, Russia hasn’t been invited to the Swiss Summit.  The Swiss Government believes that Russia should be invited. The Swiss MFA website says “Switzerland is convinced that Russia must be involved in this (peace) process. A peace process without Russia is unthinkable.” But Zelensky clearly doesn’t agree. It has been an explicit aim of Ukrainian foreign policy to exclude Russia from any dialogue on a settlement of the conflict.

Indeed, this mirrors long-standing UK policy of talking about Russia and not to Russia. Rather, and in a recent visit to Madrid, Zelensky encouraged western partners to force Russia to make peace.  By that, he meant specifically to continue to provide Ukraine with offensive weapons that it can use it strike directly into Russia. Or force Russia into peace by continuing to make war, even though there is no evidence that NATO plans to join the fight in any decisive way.

And just to be clear, on the summitry itself, Zelensky’s so-called Peace Formula isn’t a communique as the Swiss are (or should be) holding the pen. The Swiss are shooting for peace. But, whenever Zelensky talks about peace, what he really means is ‘keep funding the war’.  So this creates a recipe for diplomats finessing any public statements at the end of a Summit that will, most likely, achieve nothing.

Since his unhelpful comments about China, Zelensky has also suggested that Donald Trump is a loser. The event in Switzerland is shaping up to be another echo chamber for an increasingly boorish Zelensky to publicly hector countries that don’t agree with his deluded and completely unsupportable position.  It’s time for real peace talks with Russia to begin.

Ian Proud is a former British diplomat and was the Economic Counsellor at the British Embassy in Moscow from July 2014 to 2019.  While in Russia, Ian advised UK Ministers on Russia’s political economy, and that of neighbouring former Soviet states, including Ukraine. He recently published his memoir, a Misfit in Moscow: how British diplomacy in Russia failed, 2014-2019.