Cuba Libre II: Wishful Thinking About Cuba
What a wonderful world it would be if we could only wish our troubles away as Michael Landweber thinks we can. He wants the United States to declare victory over Cuba’s Castro regime while at the same time making concessions to it and bestowing the legitimacy that the dictatorship has craved for the better part of fifty years.
Mr. Landweber mistakenly characterizes U.S government’s policy toward Cuba as one based on animus toward a single person, Fidel Castro, rather than on a thorough understanding of the system that he has forced upon his countrymen. Though it’s now Raul Castro and not Fidel at the helm, the dictatorship remains unchanged. Just ask Cuban dissident punk rocker Gorki Aguila who was arrested on Monday for “precriminal dangerousness.” The repression continues despite the fact that Cuba is free to trade with every other country in the world. Apparently Landwber thinks that American trade has some mystical power to do what trade from other countries hasn’t been able to, bring down an intransigent totalitarian dictatorship, but he doesn’t explain exactly how that would happen. He can’t.
That’s because about 90% of the economy in Cuba is controlled by the state. If American businesses were permitted to operate in Cuba they would, under the rules of the game as dictated by the Cuban government, only be permitted to operate as minority partners with state-owned companies. They would have no right to choose their own employees or negotiate the wages with them or with independent labor unions. That’s because the state supplies the workers, collects the compensation from the foreign investor and then pays the laborers about $20 a month. I can’t quite grasp how becoming a minority partner to a murderous regime helps bring about the transition to democracy and observance of human rights that most Americans would desire for Cuba if they only knew enough about it. You see the problem with America is not that we hate Castro but that we are for the most part ignorant of him and what his reign has really been like.
In order for increased foreign business activity to bring about the desired change in Cuba structural changes to the economy must first be implemented there, not the least of which is the restoration of private property rights and the legalization of a private sector economy with all that entails. But the regime can’t make those changes and expect to stay in power for much longer. American investment in Cuba prior to such economic changes only serves as fuel to allow the bankrupt regime to continue to muddle along. The dictatorship desperately wants the embargo to be removed without making any concessions because it has pretty much bamboozled every country it could and has run out of sources of capital. If implemented, Mr. Landweber’s strategy would make the U.S. the last in a long line of suckers.
The embargo on Cuba was established when Castro expropriated about $1.8 billion in American assets, the largest such expropriation in U.S. history. Are the Castro brothers going to guarantee that they won’t do that again, is Mr. Landweber?
Following Mr. Landweber’s logic, the U.S. could have won the cold war prior to Mikhail Gorbachev and the glasnost and perestroika he ushered in. I, on the other hand, believe change must come from inside Cuba, as it did in the former Soviet Union, before anything the U.S. does can have a positive effect on the island. When the Cuban Gorbachev emerges we will recognize him not only by his words, but also by his deeds. Only then will the United States be able to negotiate with the expectation that the other side is doing so in good faith. Until then we must not delude ourselves into thinking that we can wish the Castro dictatorship away.
Henry Louis Gomez blogs regularly on Cuba at www.babalublog.com
Related posts:
Henry is wrong -
As a libertarian I of course value the principle of property rights and find it to be the easiest road to development, however, the Chinese have been able to successfully transition their economy without adequately addressing the issue of property rights. Henry assumes that everything remains static, and for all we know he is right, but what happens if things do in fact change? What happens if tomorrow the regime says that they no longer need to be majority holders in any entity, what happens to his argument? US – Cuba relations are in the state of flux because of the end of Fidel. It has not created a real opening but it has inspired many on this side of the straits to hope and wish for a change.
The embargo was not a failure as many have touted – it did it’s job. It isolated the Cuban regime during the Cold War. That War has been over and won long ago. To continue to demand an all or nothing exchange is not only unrealistic but petulant.
If businesses go into Cuba and get nationalized, honestly that is their problem. I do agree that change has to come from Cuba but we should be ready and willing to negotiate bit by bit piece by piece. People change and it may even be possible that Raul Castro may be a different man than Fidel, if for no other reason that his force of personality is not like his brother’s and people will not give him the free pass they gave Fidel. Love him or hate him Mandela, at least in the realm of economics, was a much better leader than the Socialist he said he was. The same goes for Lula. Alan Garcia has amazed us all. Granted Raul was a murdering thug, but he may have changed. We won’t know until we test him.
Comment on August 30, 2008 @ 6:26 pm
theCardinal,
Cuba has not implemented any of the widespread economic reforms that China has.
You pose hypotheticals but the original essay is not about possible contingencies to moves made by the regime. It calls for a lifting of the embargo and establishment of full diplomatic relations under the status quo. But you know that. You are simply trying to confuse the issue with possibilities that have not manifested themselves.
When Cuba privatizes its economy then we can have that debate.
Comment on August 31, 2008 @ 4:20 pm
Oh and as a libertarian you must recognize the constitutional duty of the federal government to negotiate trade with foreign governments. It’s one of the few original powers actually granted to the central government.
Comment on August 31, 2008 @ 4:23 pm
as a libertarian, I barely recognize government at all – technically I’m for all out free-trade. Henry, you are right though, Cuba HAS NOT implemented any changes. My point is that if they do implement changes that we should be willing to deal. I would not deal as openly as the original piece on the blog stated, but I would want to deal. I would want the original claims resolved of course, along with some of the proposals recommended by George – most critically the release of all political prisoners.
Comment on August 31, 2008 @ 7:06 pm
[...] Henry Luis Gomez is right. My original post is probably no more than wishful thinking. Maybe there really is absolutely [...]
Pingback on September 1, 2008 @ 7:44 am
I think Julio Calabaza, who has commented on other “Cuba Libre” blogs, is a recent immigrant from Cuba who likely grew up hearing nothing but anti-U.S. and anti-Cuban exile propaganda from the Castro government. As you know, when you tell a big lie long enough, people will start to believe it. There are likely many in Cuba who think like him – disliking the Castros but suspicious about the exiles who left many years ago, who they have been told intend to return to Cuba, dispossess the natives, and recreate their privileged lifestyles at the expense of the Cuban majority.
I don’t see how that can be done, when most of those who left Cuba in the late 50s and early 60s as adults, the ones who supposedly benefited from the Batista regime, are dead.
I would like to add that any exiles who are filled with bitterness and hatred toward the Castros and anyone else in Cuba you are estranged from should let it go. By holding onto them, you are not only being self-destructive but giving the Castros and others a victory over you. Do the Christian thing and take that victory away by forgiving them. God bless you.
Comment on September 5, 2008 @ 9:29 am