Kola Ibrahim's about the achievements of the Cuban revolution and the negative effects of neo-liberalism are accurate enough; but unfortunately much of the article is sheer drivel, reflecting either a paucity of historical knowledge and analysis on the part of the writer, or an attempt to conceal the truth. A few examples: "...the Soviet Union only supported Cuba as long as her expansionist interest were satisfied." The Soviet Union gave diplomatic and material support to revolutionary and anti-imperialist movements and states, but this was limited by its policy of 'peaceful co-existence' with the West and its position of relative weakness (eg in material wealth, level of technology and military power) vis a vis the USA & its allies. It is certainly an arguable view that the Soviet Communist Party's main international policy line was wrong, but to describe the USSR as expansionist flies in the face of the facts.

"Cuba.. would not... internationalise the revolution..." A truly bizarre assertion, particularly as it comes from an African writer. Cuban soldiers fought in the Congo in the 1960s, and thousands more later on in Southern Africa. The defeat of the SADF at Cuito Canavale would have been impossible without the Cuban fighters.

"[Cuba] would accept Soviet goods at any cost... a terrible effect on Cuba as many inferior goods were brought in without any alternative." In fact, Cuba got its petroleum, industrial equipment and consumer goods from the USSR and other CMEA members at very low cost. They were paid for by Cuba supplying sugar at significantly above the prevailing world market price, and through 'soft' loans on terms which were very advantageous for the Cubans. Through these arrangements, which are usually described as a 'Soviet subsidy' by Western commentators, living standards in Cuba rose very substantially, despite the US blockade. It was when they came to an end that the Cuban economy crashed, leading to the 'Special Period' of great material hardship.

Kola Ibrahim notes that "It is not for the capitalist apologists to teach Cuba democracy..."- but presumably it is OK for him or her as a non-capitalist apologist' to try to teach democracy to Cuba: "There is need for a socialist multi-party democracy from local to national level in Cuba and the ability of the people to determine and discuss every government policy." Well, Cuban democracy is far from perfect as even its Communist Party leaders would agree. But by making this remark without noting the relatively very high level of participation by the Cubans in choosing their representatives and deciding policy, Kola Ibrahim conceals the reality in terms of democracy in Cuba. It is unworthy that a supposed 'tribute' to Fidel should contain such falsehoods and distortions.