So, how is this thing going to turn out for Cuba? On the one hand, it looks as if Cuba has achieved a historical political victory by gaining recognition from the 11th American administration since the victory of its Revolution, without having to change essentially either its system or its form of Government. But everything I wrote in my first OEN article on Cuba over a year ago remains fully in force. In the same vein, Raul himself, replying to Vaclav Havel in one of his first speeches as President, made clear that he had not become Cuba's leader "to restore capitalism."
Yet, to play Devil's Advocate for a moment, it would seem that Raul's "pragmatism" has in fact pretty much added up to that. The inauguration of the Mariel Special Zone (still being built in cooperation with the Brazilians), along with "fiscal incentives" to investors (in inverted commas or not), have caused some mistrust among Cubans. In addition, there's the construction in Nicaragua of the new canal between the Atlantic and Pacific, which began on Dec. 22 of last year with crucial investment from China. Both the canal and the Mariel Zone are now bringing the Cuban Revolution and the Sandinistas together as possible business partners. Daniel Ortega is gambling his (political) life on the canal, since, if it works, it should create plenty of jobs in his country.
Here in Cuba the bureaucracy has dedicated itself much more to the usual outrage than to improving the efficiency of production. Moreover, the letters-to-the-editor sections of Cuban newspapers show how the bureaucrats are acting outside the law -- just like any other bunch of mobsters or oligarchs anywhere in the world. In one case, for example, a state construction firm destroyed the house of an old woman. She sued them and won; however, the firm simply refused to comply with the verdict. In another case, a man wrote that he couldn't collect Cuban money for his sugar cane crops, because the Civil Register says the piece of land he farms is not his. The man had in fact inherited the land from his father, but there was a difference of one letter in the last name. Etc., etc. This situation is similar to the "asset seizure" practiced by American police, as described here at OEN by Rob Kall himself in an article related to Ferguson.
As another sample of the mysterious way the bureaucracy here works, I can cite ETECSA, Cuba's one and only phone company, which has a division on which I depend for my email and Internet connections. On a recent campaign to confirm the phone numbers, the renewal contract I received clearly identified ETECSA as "a private enterprise." How did that happen?! No one knows, and no one has even asked. At the beginning of December, 2014, the Cuban National Assembly held its yearly session. Outbursts of sincerity and criticism, especially in the Commissions (which are similar to the Committees in the American Congress), have become standard. But, just like conservatives in America's "democracy", those in the Cuban "socialist" system protect one another and rely on the ideological pillars of the system to maintain their own status quo.
As I see it, the solution to all this is not to replace one alienating ideology with another -- for instance, "socialism" with "freedom and democracy," as was done in the former USSR and in Eastern Europe. Instead, rather than subjecting the people to ANY kind of system, the idea should be to create a system that is at the service of the people. In the US, those who run the system currently in force present themselves as "defenders of freedom," while those who do so in Cuba use the blockade as a perfect excuse. Those who run the US system justify it by invoking "market rationality." Using that principle as the basis for their actions, they can describe what they do as acting rationally and "impartially," and, at the same time, in defense of "freedom." The bureaucrats in Cuba, meanwhile, justify their actions as "defense of the Revolution." In both cases, the justifications put forward constitute an extreme degree of shamelessness.
Building a society -- and a system -- that serves the people implies that a LOT of responsibility must be assumed by the people themselves. Responsibility, in turn, imposes limits on freedom, and SOCIAL responsibility even more so. This fact is the biggest ideological barrier to any REAL change in America, and serves as a magic talisman for the neo-cons to remain in power -- not only in America, but globally.
As I have written in my comments to articles by other people, a system IS needed to organize any society, no matter what, since humanity today depends on infrastructure for survival and the monstrous one built by capitalism over two centuries cannot just be abandoned.
So, returning once again to the Dec. 17 event, what can we expect next? In the US the first question is this: will Republicans finally impeach Obama and remove him from office? If they do, what then? Very likely, he would have nothing but a few weeks left in the White House. In that case, Obama would care little about his "legacy," which would no longer reflect his accomplishments in office but only his political suicide. In fact, by implementing one of his 2008 promises of immigration reform without the consent of Congress, Obama seems to have already acknowledged his entry into the "political suicide" stage of his presidency.
As for Cuba, the re-establishment of diplomatic relations with the US will cause it to lose at least some of its "anti-imperialist" standing in the international arena. John Kerry, who doesn't dare set foot in Venezuela now, seems to be preparing to disembark on Havana's Malecon (the street along the Ocean).
How long will the new US/Cuba relationship last? To be completely cynical, the Republicans may be interested in maintaining the embassy in Havana simply in order to increase subversion in the country. Some contributors to OEN have already pointed this out. (See also the comments of Art Costa and others, as well as comments on Tom Hayden's article linked above.) With respect to Paul Craig Roberts' article, I should note here that, for the horrors he describes to be made even possible, the embargo would first have to be lifted.
Looking now at the issue of politics and diplomacy from a broader perspective, I think it's important to point out that the peoples of the Third World themselves have historically hated American ambassadors. This is because they -- the peoples - have too often seen the Ambassadors making obvious attempts to remove their leaders, or actually removing them, regardless of their own desires or decisions. Examples include Guatemala and Iran in 1954; Honduras in 2009 (where a Cuban-American in the role of US Ambassador was "contacting" everybody); and Venezuela, ever since Hugo Chavez first came to power.
In a recent visit to Colombia, John Kerry communicated US support for peace talks with the FARC. However, had war been raging at the time between the government and the rebels, he would instead have communicated US support for the government's actions. (Of course, if in other places the US likes the rebels more than it likes the government, it will support the rebels).
It's interesting to note, in connection with the Dec. 17, 2014 event, that Cuba has not publicly mentioned the FARC commander Simon Trinidad, whose case closely resembles that of Cuba's own Gerardo Hernandez. Hernandez was convicted for the notorious Feb. 24, 1996 "Brothers to the Rescue" incident that involved a shooting-down of planes, despite the defense's claim that Hernandez had nothing to do with it. In fact, the order for the shoot-down came from deep inside the Cuban military.
In the similar Colombian case, the FARC commander Simon Trinidad was extradited to the US on Uribe's request. He was accused of smuggling drugs and ACQUITTED, but then charged with terrorism and condemned to 60 years in prison. Like the Cuban Hernandez, Trinidad was singled out as the perpetrator of one specific crime, despite the FARC's claim that he had nothing to do with it. I mention his case in my article on Colombia. See also Wikipedia articles on Brothers to the Rescue and the Cuban Five.
In thinking about Cuba today, I'm struck by the thought that, in other times, Cuba's internationalist military would have been fighting imperialism in Libya and Syria, just as it did in Angola. It would also have considered Saudi Arabia to be on the same level as apartheid South Africa. Today, however, neither Cuba nor the ALBA block as a whole has the strength to even break diplomatic relations with NATO or with the Monarchs of the Gulf Council. Venezuela can't do it because it's a member of the oil cartel. The Saudis, for their part, didn't hesitate to appear at 2013 Havana Book Fair, and, right after that event, already existing diplomatic relations were quickly formalized at the embassy level.
The Saudis also came to the Book Fair a year later, and just before the Dec. 17 event the Kingdom granted credit to Cuba for the repair of the water-supply system in the city of Camaguey. Okay, I know we're not talking weapons here, and the construction and repair of the civilian infrastructure is one of Cuba's burning issues. But forty years ago the country wouldn't have accepted credit even for vital infrastructure building from apartheid South Africa.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
6
5
4
