Whither Cuba?
Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, the ailing Fidel Castro announced his resignation as President of Cuba. In practical terms, new President Raul Castro (Fidel's younger brother) has been the de facto head of state for the past eighteen months, so very little will likely change.
Cuba is one of the five remaining Communist countries in the world, alongside China, Vietnam, Laos, and North Korea. The former three have each implemented market reforms that have modernized their respective economies without loosening the Communist Party's grip on power. Cuba, like North Korea, remains a somewhat fossilized Communist state, dominated by a single man who rules amid a cult of personality.
For the United States, Castro's resignation represents a unique opportunity to reconsider our idiotic, counter-productive trade embargo. Since Castro's ascension nearly fifty years ago, the US has attempted to isolate the Cuban regime in the hopes that it would collapse, something that has clearly not worked out as planned. Instead, Castro emerged as something of a hero for other Latin American regimes resentful of American economic and political interference. The embargo persists due to intense political pressure from Cuban exiles in south Florida, a powerful interest group willing to spend large amounts of money in order to maintain a stupid policy.
Florida's Cubans tend to be staunch Republicans, so a Democratic president such as Barack Obama may feel safe enough to alienate them. Obama has pledged direct engagement with unfriendly nations as part of his foreign policy platform, and Cuba would be a fairly low-risk theater in which to implement it.
February 20th, 2008 - 00:07
It may not be as easy as you say for Obama. The Miami Cubans don’t lean towards the GOP as much as they used to, while the Tri-State Cubans are solidly Democratic and strongly pro-embargo. Because of this, it’s not surprising that none of the three presidential candidates still in the running have called for changing American policy towards Cuba.
February 20th, 2008 - 01:18
I have always wondered had there not been those idiotic anti-communist Cuban Americans there would be no idiotic policies such as trade embargo? Yes?
February 20th, 2008 - 07:48
Ah ha- I didn’t realize there was a faction of pro-Democratic, pro-embargo Cubans…further, what do you mean by the tri-state area?
Pfeffer,
Actually I think the trade embargo was started by either President Eisenhower or Kennedy.
February 21st, 2008 - 09:01
Tri-State Area = New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut. The most prominent Cuban pol in those parts would be Sen. Bob Menendez (D-NJ), who is, like I said, anti-Castro and pro-embargo.
After the election I’d expect the next president to be able to take risks and change Cuba policy, but for now, Hillary, Obama, and McCain will play it safe. The only way things would change earlier is if President Bush decided to end the embargo and take the political hit, but that’s more or less a fantasy of mine.
February 25th, 2008 - 05:10
It is interesting to note that the UN holds a vote every year or so on the US embargo of Cuba. The numbers for many years have been along the lines of 185 to 4 in favor of ending the embargo. Who makes up the other 4 you ask? Well, those big-name super-powers include: the Sechelles, Guam, Mozambique and…umm.. lets see…oh yea!! the United States! Nice to know we are in the company of such an illustrious bunch, eh?
In the area of market reforms, Cuba has allowed some, admittedly very modest, private enterprise in the areas of farming and certain other small businesses. As for further liberalization, I shudder to think about Wal Marts, Targets and Home Depots popping up around the most wonderful (and also carbon neutral) island in the Caribbean.
Most experts look to Raul to loosen things up a bit more while still hewing to the overall socialist scheme of things. Hey, it can’t be all bad if they offer universal health care and free education for life (student loans anyone?).
In the interest of balance, there is certainly much to be said about repression and human rights on the island, but can’t the same be said about China, or even the US for that matter? I mean, if we were to consider all those people of color languishing in US prisons for drug-related crimes as ultimately political in nature, the US political incarceration rate would dwarf all other nations by a huge margin.
Obama’s willingness to meet with foreign leaders without precondition is a huge and courageous step in the right direction. We won’t change the game in Cuba by continuing to play bully in the school-yard type tactics. As for the Miami and tri-state Cuban community, they need to give it up and move on. A vast plurality of voters in the US, including some conservative wheat farmers in the mid-west, want to see the embargo lifted.
If any readers want to know why Cuba is the role model for the rest of the increasingly social-democratic American continent, they may want to read Naomi Klein’s new best seller: “Disaster Capitalism”.
February 25th, 2008 - 07:40
John,
Thank you for your comment, but I find myself disagreeing quite vehemently with what you wrote. If you allow me to explain:
If Cuba’s system works better (as you imply with your reference to health care and free education), then just consider the flow of migration. Do Americans risk their lives to emigrate to Cuba? Do Cubans who have managed to escape Castro’s regime speak warmly about the situation in their homeland?
Also, you can’t fairly equate drug prisoners with political prisoners. I too agree that the rate of drug incarceration in the US is a national travesty, but Cubans locked up for political reasons merely objected to having their lives totally controlled by a central government. Would you be happy if a single political party in the US were to monopolize power, assign workers to jobs regardless of want or desire, control the media and lock up dissenters, and nationalize all industry? That’s what happened in Cuba and in every other Communist country for that matter.
Plus, I would say Castro’s popularity in Latin America has little to do with his own ideology but rather his willingness to stick up to the Americans. I would agree that American economic meddling in the region (or that of the IMF and World Bank) has not always been constructive. But there’s a lot of room between orthodox Marxism and “disaster capitalism”.
I’m hardly a right-winger, as you can see from reading my political posts. But it’s certainly possible to recognize flaws in the American model while still seeing Castro’s Cuba for what it is: a repressive, brutal police state dominated by one man for fifty years.
February 25th, 2008 - 09:14
Matt, I have to disagree with you on this one and agree with John (Incidentally, I’d love to borrow that book. Send me an e-mail, John, tboneincali@gmail.com).
Your first point is valid although in recent years the number of people emigrating from Cuba is minimal and the number emigrating at risk of life and limb is nearly unheard of.
“Also, you can’t fairly equate drug prisoners with political prisoners.” Why not, according to you, the absence of control over one’s life is the definitive policy holding the people of Cuba under. Wouldn’t it be fair to equate this same policy to those without recourse to basic necessities? We eliminate their ability to succeed (as a social-economic group), take away recourse to basic necessities (education and healthcare), and then incarcerate them for turning to an industry fueled by our own government’s policies (the drug trade). The drug trade is indeed an apt correlation.
Would you be happy if a single political party in the US were to monopolize power, assign workers to jobs regardless of want or desire, control the media and lock up dissenters, and nationalize all industry?
1. There is only one political system in America and to think otherwise is foolhardy. Big business runs everything and has their money tainted hands all over each new amendment, and veto that either does or does not go through.
2. The ebb and flow of big business does exactly this. They determine when companies will launch and when they will fall. Isn’t a company that employs 500,000 workers shutting its doors on its workforce only to outsource the labor from a third world nation the exact same thing? These people are forced to take jobs despite want or desire. This same scenario (albeit on a smaller scale) plays out on a daily basis.
3. Who has control of the media? As a former journalist I can tell you that it is most certainly not the readers. It is the advertisers and the shareholders and they are comprised of Big Business.
4. Alcohol, Medication, firearms, tobacco, and a slew of other businesses are dictated and run by government policy despite outcries from the populace as a whole.
Additionally, Obama is much more concerned with internal cyber-related issues rather than international affairs. His outspoken charismatically delivered ideology is (like most of his platform) unproven and grounded on ideas that resonate with those caught in the middle of their political ideology rather than a track record of effective governance.
February 25th, 2008 - 09:42
Todd,
Valid points but I’m afraid you’re a victim of hyperbole. To rebut:
Do you have proof that only a minimal number of Cubans are risking life and limb to emigrate to the U.S? I’ll do a search on the Internet to find out for sure, but I’d be quite surprised if the number of defectors were statistically insignificant.
Also, lack of basic necessities aside (and I do agree that our social welfare state especially in inner cities is abominable) I still don’t see the connection between drug and political prisoners. A political prisoner is one whose only crime is speaking out against government injustice. In the US, for all of our flaws, you can still publish a newspaper article, distribute leaflets, join any political party, or shout anti-government slogans on street corners without undue fear of incarceration. For an average Cuban, this is simply not possible. Freedom of speech, press, and assembly are simply not guaranteed at all in Cuba, and you cannot plausibly argue that these rights are similarly neglected in the US, or in any other democracy for that matter.
In the Cuban Communist system, the government essentially controls the employment situation of each citizen. Private entrepreneurship is discouraged and penalized. It is not an accident that the vast majority of technological and other advances that benefit humanity derive from countries with market-based economic institutions. In America, you can still quit a job you don’t like (and yes, I realize that the economic reality for the working class makes this difficult, but not unfeasable). In Cuba, this is simply not allowed. Even in China, with a much freer economic regime than Cuba’s, people face severe obstacles in making career changes. This is the direct result of excessive statism.
And as for the media, you state that corporate influence is pernicious. I don’t disagree. But again, comparing America’s media to Cuba’s doesn’t flatter the latter. In America, a private citizen can write an op-ed piece attacking the President. In Cuba, such an action would result in jail time or worse.
You simply cannot argue that Cuba is somehow freer than America just because America’s economic and social institutions are flawed. The fact that many Cubans have died attempting to enjoy freedoms that we take for granted attests to this fact.
February 25th, 2008 - 10:00
Matt, all valid points and should we be positioned at podiums all clad in dark blue suits and red ties you would emerge the inevitable winner (this time).
However, I was merely commenting that Cuba is no longer that iron clad closet where homosexuals and writers are thrown into the nether regions of a dank dark dungeon never to be heard from again.
Cubans are actually allowed to select their careers (although you are correct in that independent enterprise is shunned) and many things have changed since I believe you have last researched our closest neighbor.
Hit me up on skype and we’ll tackle this issue in geater detail and thanks for the comments. We only stand to learn more.
Cheers,
February 25th, 2008 - 14:37
I think you Yanks would be better off comparing yourselves to Scandinavia than to Cuba.