February 24, 2008
Adios Fidel
After a 49-year rule, Fidel Castro has decided to give up the presidency of Cuba, although he will continue to lurk in the background exercising influence as and when his failing health permits, through his position as first secretary of the ruling Communist Party. The most likely successor as president is his younger brother Raúl Castro, essentially Fidel without the charisma and without the beard. He represents perhaps a minor improvement in administrative competence, but no change in anything of substance.
Even during the late sixties-early seventies, when almost every western male is his late teens or early twenties sported a poster of Che and/or Fidel on his wall, that particular cultural bacillus passed me by. I was fortunate that my father took the time to explain to me that this duo stood for a repressive, totalitarian regime. My father spent his entire life fighting totalitarian regimes at home and abroad. This started in earnest when he was 18 and the Nazis rolled into the Netherlands, but like much of his vintage of European and American democratic socialists, his political education began with the Spanish civil war. After World War II he was, as a Dutch trade union official for the Metal Workers, then as Secretary General first of the European Trade Union Confederation and later of the International Confederation of Free Trade Unions, involved in resistance to communist dictators in central and eastern Europe and in China, fascist dictators in Spain and Portugal, fascist Colonels in Greece, military dictatorships throughout South America and in Indonesia, white racist regimes in Rhodesia and South Africa, black dictatorships throughout Sub-Saharan Africa, repressive regimes in North Africa, the Middle East and elsewhere in Asia.
Why does this vile, repressive regime survive?
My father showed me that Castro and his crew systematically persecuted, tortured, locked up and at times executed all those opposed to their rule: independent trade unionists, independent journalists, independent priests, independent academics, independent artists, businessmen and women - the lot. There was and is, no freedom of speech, of religion or of assembly in Cuba. It is illegal to organise political parties opposed to the ruling clique. There is no independent judiciary. There is no right to a fair trial. It is a totalitarian state - a prison for all those who value freedom.
So what accounts for the durability of this vile regime? Clearly, a ruthless state apparatus for oppressing and suppressing dissent is part of the story. But I don’t believe it’s all of it. Let’s first consider the Mussolini defence/explanation (‘he made the trains run on time’). Castro Cuba has succeeded in providing remarkably good quality universal health care and pretty good quality primary, secondary and even tertiary education, with the expenditure of very limited resources. It’s true and it’s a remarkable achievement. The US and many other countries, rich and poor, should learn from it. Whatever happens next in Cuba, it is to be hoped that it will not lead to the collapse of the universal availability of health care and of primary and secondary education. We have seen in a number of former communist countries how the provision of health care for the bulk of the population can deteriorate when the political regime collapses and how access to primary and secondary education is made subject to ability to pay or to corrupt. In almost every way, Communist economic and social systems are disasters. They do, however, deliver reasonable health care and education for all, at a fraction of the cost (as a share of GDP) incurred in market economies.
There is an interesting footnote to the Cuban health care issue. In 1986 Cuba introduced the world’s only mandatory quarantine policy for HIV-positive persons. In 1994, the quarantine was officially lifted, but by 2003, half of all HIV-positive Cubans still lived in sanatoriums set up as part of the quarantine policy. When infectious or contagious diseases are involved, the balance between protection of the privacy rights and other human rights and civil liberties of the patients and the rights of the community not to be exposed to avoidable risks, is always a difficult one to strike. The fact that Cuba was the only country to introduce a mandatory quarantine policy for HIV-positive persons is, however, consistent with the general picture of a political regime contemptuous of individual rights.
Castro became an icon of the left at home and across the world, because he overthrew a corrupt US-backed dictator, ended the semi-colonial status of Cuba and proceeded to thumb his nose at the US for the next 49 years. The US never accepted/conceived of the notion that a country which at its nearest point is less than 90 miles from the Florida coast could ever aspire to anything more than a compliant and subservient status. The dictator Batista met US official requirements. He also gave free rein to the gambling and sex industries and to US organised crime, exemplified by his decades-long friendship with the American gangster Meyer Lansky - one of the last to be airlifted out of Cuba on January 1, 1959, following the success of the Cuban revolution.
Part of Castro’s political longevity and surprising popularity at home are no doubt due to the fact that he gave the country back a measure of pride: under Batista, the US facilitated the re-organisation of Cuba as its brothel and gambling den. It is sad indeed that sex tourism has again become a thriving industry in Cuba in recent years, because of the economic hardship caused by its terminally inefficient economic system, by the US embargo and by the ending of Soviet aid following the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. Financial support from Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela, helps maintain the government in power, but does little to improve the lot of the people of Cuba.
The attitude of successive US administrations (and Congresses) to Cuba has been extraordinarily counter-productive over a long period. Following the Spanish-American War, Spain ceded Cuba, along with Puerto Rico, the Philippines and Guam to the US under the Treaty of Paris of 1898. Although the Republic of Cuba gained formal independence in 1902, this independence was severely circumscribed, with the US retaining the right, under the Cuban constitution, to intervene in Cuban affairs and to supervise its finances and foreign relations- effectively the Brezhnev doctrine on steroids, applied to countries deemed to be in the US sphere of influence.
Under a 1903 agreement, modified in a 1934 Treaty, Cuba also agreed to lease to the U.S. the naval base at Guantánamo Bay. The agreement and Treaty were classic examples of ‘unequal agreements/treaties’ rammed down the throat of the weaker party, and have been a source of resentment ever since.
Cuban-American relations have been a mess ever since the Cuban revolutionaries took over in 1959. In 1961, Kennedy listened to the fruitcake wing of the Cuban exile community and launched the disastrous Bay of Pigs invasion. Castro and Khrushchev badly miscalculated and brought us to the brink of a nuclear armageddon in 1962, during what became known as the Cuban missile crisis. It is the only occasion I can recall my mother hoarding both canned food and bottled water in case the world was about to go ballistic.
In 2002, the George W. Bush administration established a military prison, the Guantánamo Bay detention camp, for persons alleged to be militant combatants captured in Afghanistan and Iraq. The US administration has used the extraterritoriality of this detention camp as a smokescreen for denying the prisoners held at Guantánamo Bay their fundamental and universal human rights as well as their rights under the US constitution and US law. Mistreatment and torture have been common. Having the US government commit such gross violations of human rights and civil liberties on Cuban territory is also a wonderful propaganda gift for a dictator like Castro, who has a 50-year record of abuse, torture and mistreatment of political opponents. It was neither the first nor the last rank stupidity in US policy towards Cuba.
Equally counterproductive been the US economic, commercial and financial embargo imposed on Cuba in 1962, after Cuba expropriated the properties of US citizens and corporations, notably the ITT corporation (which owned the Cuban telephone system) and the United Fruit Company (which owned sugar cane plantations and processing plants). The embargo has impoverished ordinary Cubans and has made the country more dependent on nefarious external influences, first the Soviet Union and more recently Venezuela. It has in all likelihood (we will never be able to rerun history without the embargo, unfortunately) contributed to the longevity of the Castro regime.
It is quite extraordinary how US politics vis-à-vis Cuba has been shaped and controlled by a relative small number of Cuban-American exiles for whom this issue has been the litmus test for their political support. Both Democratic and Republican presidents have put their brains into non-active mode when the lunatic fringe of the Cuban-American community makes its ridiculous and ill-thought-out demands. Fortunately, the passing of time and of generations means that the influence of the mindless diehards is waning.
What is to be done?
This is the time to end the embargo unconditionally and to hold out membership in NAFTA for Cuba provided it implements a programme of democratic reforms and pro-market reforms. Fidel Castro’s fade-out and imminent demise present a unique opportunity for a new US engagement with Cuba. If the US authorities continue to talk and act as if they will not be satisfied until the heirs of Meyer Lansky get their hands on their ancestor’s ill-gotten gains, this opportunity could be missed and Cuba could become a festering, crime-ridden sore for a generation or more.
As a further gesture, and in part-compensation for the damage caused by the embargo, the US could return Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, unconditionally. Such vestiges of neo-colonialism don’t look good at the best of times. Further encumberd with the taint of human rights abuses and violations of the US constitution, Guantanamo Bay has become a poison chalice for the US. The only way to drain it of its poison is to return it to the Cuban people.
“I was fortunate that my father took the time to explain to me that this duo stood for a repressive, totalitarian regime.”
Like in ex-USSR, Cuban revolution was “with good intentions” that disappeared when poison of power took its toll.
And another thing. I always wondered why US was so anxious to assassinate Che, while letting Fidel go for 49 years. Maybe he has part in Che’s death? Internal struggle for power?
Posted by: Constantin | February 24th, 2008 at 6:20 pm | Report this commentThe jury is still out on this one: as you say, the Cuban Revolution has brought equality and advancement to Cubans, especially in its early decades, national pride being not the least of its successes. But a murderous totalitarian regime nonetheless, even if masked by the charming face of Fidel (I cannot say the same of Che, whose eery image recalls to me that of a psychopath.)
What is it with America that there is always a serving chief nose-thumper in the world? (Castro and France in previous decades; Ahmadi-Nejad and Chavez in contemporary times.) Is this an ineluctable consequence of being top-dog, or is it the American psyche, haughty and self-righteous, which asks for such a reaction?
Posted by: Ron Cohen-Seban | February 24th, 2008 at 7:49 pm | Report this commentIt seems a perfect place to host US Guantanamo resort. Whether the vile regime will survive after Fidel has to be seen. Guantanamo US prison camp seemingly will.
Posted by: Paolo - Milan | February 24th, 2008 at 9:23 pm | Report this comment“Even during the late sixties-early seventies, when almost every western male is his late teens or early twenties sported a poster of Che and/or Fidel on his wall”
Posted by: John | February 24th, 2008 at 11:50 pm | Report this commentNot quite so - I only saw one or two such posters on a friend’s wall and my friends included active supporters of the Conservative, Liberal, Labour and Communist parties, plus a few professing support of anarchy and many non-political individuals. I chose not to support them because I had read about their actions and policies - I started reading reasonably reliable newspapers when I was 5 or 6 - but I didn’t realise until later that they would be/were oppressive on a Stalinist rather than a Krushchev-era scale.
This post is to remind you that Raul was a professed Communist before Fidel. So the move to welcome Cuba back into the international community should follow Raul’s resignation rather than Fidel’s. It might also be worth remembering that Batista pardoned those two spoilt middle-class brats after Fidel’s first unsuccessful rebellion and their response after gaining power to execute many of his supporters, so giving Raul free rein may not be the best option for the unfortunate Cubans.
By all means tell the USA to reform its policies, which have made a bad situation worse, but please do not mistake Raul Castro for Richard Cromwell
I would ask the same questions about the Chinese regime, today heralded as a model throughout the developing world for its move away from communist economic policies … and toward ones that compare most closely with the fascist regimes of the previous century or present-day Russia.
While Cuba is globally recognized as an unfree hermit nation, however, Western businesses, with active cheerleading from the media, are slashing jobs in their home markets to dive headlong into China, in doing so providing a patina of legitimacy to its nefarious rulers. The goldrush they see today will leave them ravaged tomorrow by low-cost competitors who watch and learn from the foreign competitors’ production practices and management techniques supplied by Western consultants. This, not Cuba, is the most urgent problem facing the 21st century.
Posted by: Benjamin | February 25th, 2008 at 3:53 am | Report this commentBoth of the Democratic presidential candidates are denouncing NAFTA and similar agreements. My best guess is that even if the US ends some of the embargo, tariff and quota barriers to trade will remain daunting.
Posted by: David Martin | February 25th, 2008 at 10:46 am | Report this commentInteresting article, which raises the question of what priority freedom of speech and the rights of minorities can have in countries struggling to obtain “basics” such universal health care and education.
I think most people can see that a country which can provide the latter in the face of the kind of opposition from a regional superpower will retain the support of the people, despite human rights violations.
Compare the record of countries in the region under U.S. tutelage (Colombia, Chile), and the regime no longer seems so “vile”.
Posted by: Peter Lalvani | February 25th, 2008 at 12:07 pm | Report this commentI was born in Cuba in 1965 and lived there the first 21 years of my live and I can tell you there is nothing positive about the regimen that governed the island since 1959. The result of the Castro government is a long list of grave consequences to every aspect of the Cuban society that will be felt for many years after freedom returns to Cuba. All of the talk about free health care and education are propaganda fed to the West as part of their fight to destroy our ?way of life?. I?d argue that Communism in any form has been more damaging to humanity than Fascism, yet inexplicably its horrible effects have never been well publicized. Probably the clearest consequences of the push of the Left against capitalism are being seen in Africa today, the movement for the independence of Africa was a major objective of the communists of the 60s, and they got it. Today Africa is a complete chaos, and the great achievements that had been obtained have been traded by infra human living conditions, too much unneeded pain and suffering. If America Latina wants to ever get ahead, the model that should be studied in every school is the one of Pinochet?s Chile, arguably the most advanced and stable society in the continent. Now, that was a government that worked for its people, and they still enjoy that harvest after all these years.
Posted by: Lee Borio | February 25th, 2008 at 5:34 pm | Report this comment“And another thing. I always wondered why US was so anxious to assassinate Che, while letting Fidel go for 49 years.”
The US has gone after Fidel Castro, failed, and gave up because Castro became mired in Cuba’s own problems and for the most part stayed home. Che went out and proselytized revolution to other dictatorships.
Posted by: Mav | February 25th, 2008 at 6:54 pm | Report this commentIt is quite strange to suggest that a comparison with Chile, presumably referring to the former regime of Augusto Pinochet, leaves the regime of Fidel Castro looking somehow less vile. The human rights abuses under Castro dwarf those under Pinochet, and the results of the two regimes, in terms of democracy, human rights and human and economic development, are certainly very favourable to the latter (which was nevertheless a vile regime, because of its human rights abuses).
Equally strange is the suggestion that meaningful conclusions about the extent and basis of popular support for a regime can be drawn in a case where freedom of speech is nonexistent, and dissent from the official dogma can still lead to imprisonment.
Posted by: Thomas S. | February 25th, 2008 at 7:49 pm | Report this commentThere are aspects as to the survival of the regime that have not been explored.
Most potential dissenters leave the island. Only a small minority choose to sample Fidel’s prisons.
Neighbourhood informers, the CDR, make it very difficult to start dissident organisations.
Around 1 in 6 people, who call themselves Cubans, live outside the island. They are typically well educated and hard-working. They send or bring back to Cuba more than $1bn a year.
In 1994, there were major riots in Havana, as maybe as many as 100,000 Cubans risked death attempting to cross to Florida on rafts typically made from tractor tyres and tabletops. There was a policy response by the Cuban Government. Most importantly the possession of $s was legalised. Tourism expanded.
The US trade embargo is not as tight as many people suppose. Exports of food and medicine to Cuba can evade it. Bread sold in Havana is often made of wheat grown in Kansas and bought with $s earned in Miami!
Just about any US product is available in Cuba to those with enough $s. Panama is a popular location, in which exports leaving the US are re-directed to Cuba. In recent years I have seen films of Fidel holding a Coca-Cola bottle and wearing Nike (or maybe it was Reebok trainers).
Having narrowly escaped disaster in the early 90s following the removal of Soviet aid, the Cuban establishment is unlikely to risk another collapse of the Cuban economy. Fundamental change in Cuba will probably come, when as in the USSR the establishment decide that they will be better off in a reformed system than under socialism. This is especially true, if most potential leaders of domestic rebellion are living in Spain or the USA.
Posted by: chris barclay | February 25th, 2008 at 10:57 pm | Report this commentChris, your point that the possibility of ‘exit’ undermines the likelihood that people will use ‘voice’ at home to register their discontent, is very much to the point. The current financial support for the totalitarian Cuban regime by Hugo Chavez, and past financial support from the former Soviet Union also demonstrate the perils of ‘foreign aid’.
When routed through oppressive, corrupt and growth-destroying ruling elites (as it almost always is when it goes to truly poor countries through official state organs), foreign ‘aid’ can end up delaying the overthrow of these disfunctional political and economic regimes, instead extending and deepening the immiserisation and disenfranchisement of the poor in poor countries.
Posted by: Willem Buiter | February 25th, 2008 at 11:23 pm | Report this commentAnother heart wrenching case of a country, bullied by another reacts against the bully but chooses the wrong path. Communism has brought nothing but grief, suffering, poverty and totalitarian cruelty wherever it’s been. And when it goes, corruption and mindless power games amongst the incumbents prevail, Eastern Europe and Russia to name a few examples. Cuba is a fantastic country with a thousand prospects but with a neighbour like the US, who seems to have no rules of government when we’re talking about money and power, what chance of real recognition does Cuba have?
Posted by: Anthony | February 25th, 2008 at 11:28 pm | Report this commentAnother heart wrenching case of a country, bullied by another reacts against the bully but chooses the wrong path. Communism has brought nothing but grief, suffering, poverty and totalitarian cruelty wherever it’s been. And when it goes, corruption and mindless power games amongst the incumbents prevail, Eastern Europe and Russia to name a few examples. Cuba is a fantastic country with a thousand prospects but with a neighbour like the US, who seems to have no rules of government when we’re talking about money and power, what chance of real recognition does Cuba have?
P.S. Pinochet happened to practice genocide, I don’t see a great example in his regime. Though to be fair, Chile does show strong signs of economic stability.
Posted by: Anthony | February 25th, 2008 at 11:31 pm | Report this commentI challenge all commentators to witness the depravity, poverty, extreme violence, domestic abuse, drugs, injustice, inopportunity, and general dismay of a typical client state of the US in the region, lets say Guatemala, and then tell me what freedom and progress is. Surely Cuba has risen above the nearest examples of alternative central american models of development, despite all the obstacles placed in its way.
Posted by: Philip | February 26th, 2008 at 4:32 am | Report this commentI challenge all commentators to witness the depravity, poverty, extreme violence, domestic abuse, drugs, injustice, backwardness, inopportunity, and general dismay of a typical client state of the US in the region, lets say Guatemala, and then tell me what freedom and progress is. Surely Cuba has risen above the nearest examples of alternative central american models of development, despite all the obstacles placed in its way.
Posted by: Philip | February 26th, 2008 at 4:33 am | Report this commentIt is quite astonishing to suggest that a comparison with Chile, presumably referring to the repugnant former regime of Augusto Pinochet, somehow leaves the Cuban regime looking less vile. On the contrary, any comparison must be very favourable to Chile: the human rights abuses under Pinochet, though deplorable, were on a much smaller scale than those under Castro, and over a much shorted period of time.
In terms of human and economic development, Chile is one of the most advanced countries in the developing world, with a high position on the UN Human Development Index (well ahead of Cuba, including a higher life expectancy) and the highest per-capita GDP in Latin America. It is also a functioning democracy where human rights are largely respected.
Equally surprising is the suggestion that there exists popular support for the Cuban regime. When freedom of speech is nonexistent, dissent can lead to imprisonment and the police/military are used to prevent citizens escaping abroad, such a suggestion is completely absurd.
Posted by: Thomas S. | February 26th, 2008 at 7:03 am | Report this commentI can only echo Philip.
Cuba looks like a basket case until you look at the figures provided by the CIA world factbook.
Cuba has a lower child mortality than the USA, a first world life expectancy and all this on a rice and beans per capita GDP of $4500.
As for politics Cuba is a one party state and this is worse than in Dimtry Orlov’s words the choice in the USA between the Capitalist party and the other Capitalist party?
Posted by: Thomas Ackerman | February 26th, 2008 at 7:37 am | Report this commentInteresting article, Willem. So what would your dad have made of modern China, and of the West’s relationship to it?
Posted by: Julian Gough | February 26th, 2008 at 9:17 am | Report this commentJulian, my father is still around … a young 86. He should really speak (blog) for himself, but is unlikely to, with his rather disabled, one-finger keyboard technique. My sense is that he considers modern China the worst of all possible worlds: political totalitarianism, corrupt unbridled capitalism and continental-scale environmental vandalism. Not his view of the good society at all.
Posted by: Willem Buiter | February 26th, 2008 at 11:46 am | Report this commentYou can’t compare Cuba with Guatemala, two completely different countries. Cuba was never like Guatemala; Castro did not save us from being like Guatemala. On the contrary he made us look a lot more like Guatemala.
What does the U.S. has to do with Guatemala; it is very common for losers to blame other people for their own problems. We are all responsible for what we have, Cuba and any other country in Latin America. Even though the U.S. has influence in the region, the ultimate reason for most of our problems is local corruption and other dysfunctional behaviors that have been passed from generation to generation and have become part of the national identity.
How can the U.S fix that? Why should the U.S fix that? If it tries to, it will be considered an intrusion in another country’s domestic affairs.
Let’s stop blaming the U.S. for all of what is bad in the world and take responsibility for our own actions. Can you blame the Russia for the current situation in Cuba?
Posted by: Lee Borio | February 26th, 2008 at 3:52 pm | Report this commentThomas Ackerman,
It is misleading to consider a single development figure in isolation. The relatively low infant mortality rate in Cuba, for example, cannot be fully appreciated without also looking at the maternal mortality ratio, which is very high in Cuba in comparison with the industrialised countries, and even some of the more developed Latin American countries, such as Chile. (It must also be said that the USA is far from a model country in terms of its health care system.)
A second point is that GDP is not exogenous to the regime and its policy choices. Cuba’s low GDP per capita is not a result of nature, which the Cuban regime has been forced to make do with; it is rather a result of the policies pursued by that regime, together with other factors. More successful regimes have more resources to spend on health and education, in part because they have followed better policies (typically with far less in the way of human rights violations).
The best overall picture of development is probably given by the UN Human Development Index, which shows that Cuba is not a ‘basket case’, but also that a number of Latin American countries are more developed. However, this ignores the enormous costs to Cubans of the regime, in terms of lives lost and basic human rights denied. Such costs are not necessary for development, and when they are included in the equation, the result is extremely unfavourable to the regime of Fidel Castro (to put it very mildly).
Posted by: Thomas S. | February 26th, 2008 at 7:16 pm | Report this commentThomas S.
no-one denies the human rights abuses perpertrated in Cuba, or the lack of individual freedoms. But refer back to much of central america where notions are freedom are nothing more than pretense in a reality where unemployment, poor health, lack of education, corruption, crime, racism, and massive inquities in wealth reduce most people’s lives to a battle of daily survival.
comparing the lives of the poorest of the poor in each central american country, i think cuba stacks up pretty well. in spite of years of embargo.
and yes, you can blame the USSR for some of Cuba’s problems. its meddling distorted Cuba’s economic and political development quite radically.
in a similar way, Guatemala suffers greatly from the effects of a 20 year civil war that killed 100s of thousands of people. a war largely manipulated and sponsored by American interests.
go for a walk and check it out.
Posted by: Philip | February 27th, 2008 at 3:45 am | Report this commentPhilip,
I’m afraid I don’t quite understand your point. Is it that you believe there is a trade-off between human rights and development? Is it that you support the violation of human rights if it (in your view) leads to higher development? Is it perhaps that you believe repressive regimes are somehow acceptable because the USA has supported repressive regimes in Latin America?
I don’t believe the first point is true, and even if I did, I would still disagree with the second point. As for the third point, the fact that both Cold War blocs supported various repressive regimes cannot rationally be said to imply that such regimes are therefore acceptable.
With respect to development, in 1959 Cuba was one of the most developed countries in Latin America. Its per-capita GDP was near the top for the region, as was its literacy rate. Its infant mortality rate was not only the lowest in Latin America, but also lower than in several industrial countries in Europe (the latter is no longer true). The suggestion that Cuba’s relatively high level of devlopment vis-à-vis the least developed countries in Latin America is somehow a result of the Castro regime is thus completely unfounded. On the whole, Cuba was relatively more developed before Castro than it is now.
In case it is unclear, my point is that the Castro regime is morally indefensible, and like the other regimes of the former Soviet bloc, a failure in terms of economic development. This does not imply I agree with the US policies towards Cuba. I do not. Trade and détente, in particular Brandt’s Ostpolitik, were vital in eventually overturning authoritarian socialism in central and eastern Europe, whereas the US policy towards Cuba has at best been ineffective.
Posted by: Thomas S. | February 27th, 2008 at 7:52 pm | Report this comment