BACK TO THE PAST IN CUBA
TULUM, MEXICO
Out with the old, in with the old. Last week, Cuba officially replaced 81-year old leader, Fidel Castro, with his 76-year old `baby’ brother, Raul. Promoted to positions just below Raul were two of his closest supporters and political cronies, 77-year old Ramon Machado Ventura and 72-year old Gen. Julio Casas Regueiro, both Stalinist hardliners.
Not since the 1980’s era Soviet Politburo and post-Mao China have we seen such political gerontocracy. Being of certain years myself, I have high regard for maturity, but what we’ve just seen in Cuba, a vibrant, peppery nation filled with youngsters, appears more like old timer’s nostalgia than a plan to lead the island nation into the future.
I’ve been just across the water from Cuba these recent days, and busy reading Fidel Castro’s daily commentaries with high interest. El Maximo Leader has retired to become El Maximo Commentator. Columnists of the world, unite!
The next generation of Communist leaders who almost everyone believed would succeed Fidel was put on hold. But the current gerontocracy won’t last long. Keep you eyes on VP Carlos Lage, foreign minister Felipe Roque, and National Assembly president, Ricardo Alarcon. They are likely to soon replace Raul’s Old Guard and start dismantling the Stalinist economy that has largely broken down.
So what next for 11 million long-suffering Cubans? Slow speed ahead, for the present, with modest reforms. The army has assumed more power. The economy will remain on life support, kept going by free oil from Venezuela and tourism. Cuba will remain a tropical police state with a clapped out Marxist economy.
Foreign visitors enthuse over Cuba’s laudable achievements in public health, education and science, but hardly ever see the ubiquitous apparatus of apartment, neighborhood, office and factory informers and secret police that keeps the Communist regime in power.
French intelligence sources tell me there is a growing risk of major street violence by poor blacks, who make up 60% of the population and live in slums ringing Havana. Army units have been deployed around the capitol.
As for Fidel, this writer, who remembers boisterous Cuba in pre-Castro days, believes he will still pull strings from the background, much as China’s Deng Xiaoping did during his last years of infirmity. Interestingly, Deng’s only official title was Chairman of the Chinese Bridge Assn., but everyone knew who was boss.
Ditto Fidel, who is adored and respected in Cuba as the national father figure. As I previously reported from Cuba, major change, including a move towards Chinese-style reforms, is unlikely to occur until after Fidel’s death. To do so while he lives would be an insult, and show lack of respect to the man who defeated scores of attempts by the United States to assassinate him and force Cuba back into the US orbit. I don’t think Cuba will really change until Papa Fidel is gone from the scene.
Cubans are a proud, highly capable people. I have faced their soldiers in Angola and can certainly attest to their bravery. They have always been the aristocrats of the West Indies since Havana was founded in 1519. By contrast, `Johnny come lately’ New York City was not founded until 1625, nearly a century later.
Washington’s power brokers would do well to understand that Cuba is not a little banana republic that can be ordered about by US multinationals or Washington Congressmen in the pay of the Florida sugar lobby.
The nearly half-century US blockade of Cuba is incredibly stupid and must be ended. It probably will be if the Democrats win the White House, in spite of rightwing Cuban exile voters in south Florida who keep the embargo alive.
If Americans really want to help long-suffering Cubans, they must engage politically and economically with Havana and end the embargo.
But the Bush Administration insists it won’t even talk to Cuba until Havana releases political prisoners and begins recognizing human rights.
The US is right to call for freedom and democracy in Cuba. But most people outside the US see this policy as highly hypocritical.
Cuba’s human rights violations are deplorable, but certainly no worse, and in fact less severe, than those of China and Vietnam, not to mention Egypt, Iraq or ally Israel. Washington sponsors dictatorships across the Mideast, Central Asia and, until lately, Pakistan. It has good relations with Communist Vietnam and China, and backs the bloody-handed Afghan Communist Party. Washington can just as well deal with Havana’s Marxists.
Besides, the Bush Administration that created Guantanamo and made torture the American way of life is hardly in a position to lecture Cuba or anyone else on human rights.
Candidate Barak Obama is being realistic when he offers to sit down with Raul Castro. He is acting the statesman and realist. Hillary Clinton and John McCain should be ashamed of themselves for loudly criticizing this sensible proposal.
Cuba will change, but more slowly than we would like. Washington must also change, ending its foolish, unseemly fifty-year vendetta against this small but proud nation. The US should extend the hand of friendship rather than trying to make Cuba crawl. That’s acting like a true great power.
Copyright Eric S. Margolis 2008
Posted by Eric Margolis on March 3, 2008 01:31 PM
Comments:
Mr. Margolis:
I noticed that the comments on this article have been removed and that the comments on a random selection of previous articles are also gone. Is this temporary, or a permanent feature?
Posted by Weary at March 6, 2008 11:08 AM
I imagine he’s being pickier about what kind of posting he permits in his comments section. From his perspective, I think such a move was smart; people were posting entire articles from other websites onto this section, often as means of sending messages only tenuously related to Eric’s own journalistic efforts. While I’m sympathetic to many of the messages, there’s a time and a place for everything.
I imagine that issues of copyright infringement (many of the pieces posted were opinion-based analyses of uncopyrightable news facts) and the risk that the words of other journalists might be construed as his, prompted a more rigorous approach to moderating the section.
Posted by chatman at March 6, 2008 03:13 PM
There seems to be a cut off at June 2007. Before that the comments sections is still populated. From June 2007 onward the comments section is empty.
Chatman: Your speculations make sense, although why the cut off?
Posted by Weary at March 6, 2008 03:28 PM
Anyways, on topic.
Mr. Margolis:
Before Castro, Cuba was ruled by a puppet dictator of the U.S. with sufficient brutality and disregard for the poor that Cubans actually took up arms in a revolution. Such has not happened during Castro’s time. Even with the levels of poverty still remaining in Cuba, Cuba under Castro has done far better for its general population than other Central American countries ruled by U.S.-backed dictators, despite Cuba being under U.S. sanctions. Cuba would be even farther better off under Castro if U.S. sanctions weren’t in place. If there is any “blame” for the levels of poverty in Cuba, it is better placed at the doorstep of U.S. policy than on Castro’s policies.
Posted by Weary at March 6, 2008 03:37 PM
From his perspective, I think such a move was smart
From my perspective it looks like midlife crisis with a twist.
Seriously though, the whole articles getting posted were becoming irritating. I suppose this is one way of dealing with the crap.
As for today… nice article. But I can’t help having a soft spot for Castro, that lovable old dinosaur.
Cuba is a great nation and in many ways had able leadership. The man is one hell of a survivor. Anybody who can stare down the US for so long, knows his stuff.
We will never forget the help Cubans gave us during the earthquake. These are the “good guys”.
Posted by The Questioner at March 7, 2008 04:19 AM
Any bets that pre-revolution Cuba ‘interests’ within the USA have ‘dibs’ acknowledged and ready for delivery once ‘freedom’ reigns? And this doesn’t refer to Cuban exiles.
Posted by foottothefire at March 11, 2008 03:52 PM