Castro

I have left it until today to comment on a huge event in world politics: the resignation of Fidel Castro. There is no shortage of opinions on this unexpected development, but most of them seem to be cut from the same set of assumptions. You know, the ones we have heard for the last 50 years- Cuba is Communist (and therefore, bad); Castro is a dictator (true); Castro has not been the most enlightened of rulers (also true); Castro destroyed Cuba (not true); We = good, Cuba = bad (hmmm...) I admittedly do not have anywhere near a complete understanding of Cuban history. I always did get the feeling, however, that Cuba's world image was a victim of the same type of political machination that has plagued the Middle East for so long. The information I did have, such as the US support for terrorist Luis Posada Carriles and our meddling in the affairs of the other Western hemisphere countries in general, seemed to suggest such machination - so, I did some research. Noam Chomsky quickly appears (again) when doing my research. This article talks, in quite specific terms, about the Cuban situation for the last 50 years. US economic warfare against Cuba has been strongly condemned in virtually every relevant international forum, even declared illegal by the Judicial Commission of the normally compliant Organization of American States. The European Union called on the World Trade Organization to condemn the embargo. The response of the Clinton administration was that "Europe is challenging 'three decades of American Cuba policy that goes back to the Kennedy Administration,' and is aimed entirely at forcing a change of government in Havana." The administration also declared that the WTO has no competence to rule on US national security or to compel the US to change its laws. Washington then withdrew from the proceedings, rendering the matter moot. After reading this, I also looked into more mainstream media: If left-right prejudices really are as redundant as the prime minister reckons, his best-advised policy shift should be rather different. Within reason – and though hell will freeze over, while pigs cruise over Downing Street – he should go Cuban. -John Harris, BBC Newsnight report Cuba’s achievements in social development are impressive given the size of its gross domestic product per capita. As the human development index of the United Nations makes clear year after year, Cuba should be the envy of many other nations, ostensibly far richer. [Cuba] demonstrates how much nations can do with the resources they have if they focus on the right priorities – health, education, and literacy. -Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the United Nations Cuba has done a great job on education and health and it does not embarrass me to admit it. -World Bank President James Wolfensohn The health system in Cuba guarantees accessibility to the entire population, is free of charge, and covers the spectrum from vaccinations to sophisticated interventions. The results are impressive: Cuba’s health figures are on a par with developed countries that have 20 times the budget. The country is experiencing a difficult period because of the collapse and loss of support from the Soviet Union; over 30 years’ trade embargo by the United States; and the gradual change from a centrally planned economy towards more of a free market system. Shortages are experienced in every sector, and maintaining health care services at the current level is too expensive. Doctors and nurses continue to work towards the goal of health for all Cubans, even though their salaries are minimal. Signs of negligence or corruption, often seen in other socialist countries where incentives for output are lacking, are unknown. Topics such as family planning and AIDS deserve immediate attention. -Hans Veeken, Letter from Cuba in the British Medical Journal These quotes seem to paint a very different perspective of the success of Cuban Communism. Most of this analysis requires an extensive knowledge of the inter-connectedness of multiple entities, so for the sake of discussion, I will focus on 3 key points regarding Cuba: 1. Castro's record on human rights 2. Castro's stance on the United States 3. Economic sanctions and the effect on Cuba's economy Point 1 is fairly easy to see. Castro does not have a particularly good record on human rights. Dictators seldom do. To cut Castro any slack on this major deficiency would be both inaccurate and dangerous, as it would show Castro in the same light as some have chosen to show recently deceased Chilean dictator Agusto Pinochet, even to the extreme of wanting more leaders like him. I haven't seen too many of these same people claiming the same for Castro. Of course, we know capitalism = good and communism = bad - regardless of the effect on the people - but it seems odd that given such similar situations, the results of the analysis could be so different. Unless there was an ulterior motive, I suppose... Point 2 is fairly easy as well, but it seems that most people are able to understand it. Here is the situation: You are Fidel Castro. You have a huge, militarily dominant country 70 miles from your border. The have attempted to overthrow your government on multiple occasions. They have attempted to assassinate you several times. They have maintained a 30+ year import embargo that threatens the health and welfare of your citizens. How would you feel about that particular country? Point 3 is the most interesting, and the most complicated. It has been claimed many times that Cuba's economic situation is a result of Castro's Communist government. Others have reported that US-led economic sanctions have created a situation where Cuba's economy could not possibly be successful. In the classic chicken-or-egg scenario, it is impossible to tell which is true from an objective sense. However, citing from the Chomsky article linked above: The Bush I administration reacted to the elimination of the security pretext (Big bad, USSR-related stuff) by making the embargo much harsher, under pressure from Clinton, who outflanked Bush from the right during the 1992 election campaign. Economic warfare was made still more stringent in 1996, causing a furor even among the closest US allies. The embargo came under considerable domestic criticism as well, on the grounds that it harms US exporters and investors -- the embargo's only victims, according to the standard picture in the US; Cubans are unaffected. Investigations by US specialists tell a different story. Thus, a detailed study by the American Association for World Health concluded that the embargo had severe health effects, and only Cuba's remarkable health care system had prevented a "humanitarian catastrophe"; this has received virtually no mention in the US. The embargo has effectively barred even food and medicine. In 1999 the Clinton administration eased such sanctions for all countries on the official list of "terrorist states," apart from Cuba, singled out for unique punishment. We made the embargo worse AFTER the military threat disappeared? That seems odd... I wonder why?