Sat, Nov 22, 2008

User login


Jewcy Book Club

Welcome Authors
Martin Samuel Cohen
&
Frances Dinkelspiel
who are posting all week.
Coming up:
  • 12/01:
    Benyamin Cohen
  • 12/01:
    Matthew Rothschild
  • 12/08:
    Seth Greenland

TAG:

Fidel Castro

America's Baffling Life-Support for Castro

All together: Fidel y Mas Canosa son la misma cosa.
Andy Hume
 

Despite the CIA’s repeated, and legendary, attempts at assassination, the Castro era is ending with a whimper rather than an exploding cigar. It’s hard to see quite what socialism has achieved for Cuba. The UN’s Human Development Report for 2007-8 flags up the nation’s much-vaunted strong points – high literacy and educational standards and a life expectancy comparable with many developed nations (though lower than Chile and Costa Rica), but also notes a per capita GDP lower than any of its Caribbean neighbours.

Agricultural yields have stagnated or fallen even as they’ve risen elsewhere in the region, and food production is half that when Castro came to power. Freedom House’s annual survey of political rights and civil liberties gives Cuba the lowest possible rating in both categories, one of only seven countries to score the perfect donut; authors from George Orwell to Valcav Havel are banned. Castro has slowlyEl JefeEl Jefe but surely turned Cuba into an impoverished, repressive shithole.

In this context, it is at least arguable that the only thing that has kept him in power for five decades is United States policy. Economic stagnation can be blamed on the yanqui embargo; political repression justified on the grounds of expediency. Castro isn’t the first leader to use his “wartime presidency” as an excuse for curtailing civil liberties, but he’s one of the most egregious, and American administrations from Eisenhower on have played into his hands.

Europeans love to contrast their worldly-wise use of diplomacy and “soft” power with the embarrassing belligerence of their American cousins, recasting their military impotence as a strength and preferring not to dwell on the myriad examples of strongmen who’ve ignored their wheedling entreaties down the years. Starry-eyed leftists have seldom needed much encouragement to lionise the old thug, but Washington’s over-the-top rhetoric and blunt policy tools, like the Helms-Burton Act which threatened sanctions on US friends and allies who dared to permit trade with Cuba, has merely cemented the romantic canard of the bearded revolutionary standing up to the bully.

The double standards on show, most noticeable when compared with the fawning treatment of similarly unpleasant but much richer regimes from Riyadh to Beijing, reinforce the suspicion of hypocrisy. Castro has played his hand skillfully, but he shouldn’t have had as many cards in the first place.

Whingeing Europeans are no reason to revise US policy, God knows, but with Fidel’s departure, the opportunity arises to change the whole tone and substance of American policy towards Cuba, and correct a historic mistake. There should be an immediate promise to lift the embargo and normalize relations with Havana, but carefully and directly linked to political and economic liberalization and free elections.

Economic freedom is no guarantor of political liberty, of course, but if engagement is good enough for the Chinese, it’s hard to see why Cubans should be treated any different. Besides, his successor, brother Raul, is no spring chicken at 76, and revolutions seldom long outlive their makers. At the very least, you won’t have Castro to kick around any more.


 

Is Obama's Cuba Policy Really That Different From Hillary's?

Nope
Michael Weiss
 

Barack Obama's courage to speak the unspeakable about revising our disastrous and sclerotic Cuba policy is now matched by his willingness to pose as just another establishment candidate when it comes to the most sustained trade embargo in modern history.

Not missing an opportunity to miss the obvious, liberal blogger Steve Clemons opened his item about Fidel Castro's resignation as the world's most actuarially frustrating dictator today with this remark:

OK -- Which of the presidential candidates is prepared to finally break US-Cuba relations out of the anachronistic Cold War cocoon they have been frozen in and initiate a new course that benefits American interests?

Barack Obama has sketched out the initial steps of a changed direction already, while Hillary Clinton in response said that the Bush administration's management of Cuba was just fine with her until something triggered a reason to change.

Now it is true that Obama published an op-ed in the Miami Herald in late August of last year arguing, reasonably enough, that the U.S.-imposed travel ban on Cuban-Americans, and the ban on allowing them to send money back to relatives on the island, should be lifted. The L.A. Times gave Obama credit for this judgment, tasking him only with not going far enough--the ban should be lifted categorically,Peas in a pod on CubaPeas in a pod on Cuba for all U.S. citizens, the paper said. Obama had also listed Castro as one of the nefarious heads of state he wouldn't mind sitting down with as president, a hypothetical for which he was lambasted by Clinton as naïve and unready for the Oval Office.

But is Obama's position with respect to the trade embargo, which has been in place since 1962 and represents the most influential aspect of our non-engagement with Cuba, really all that different from Hillary's position, best defined as "Wait and see what Cuba does first"?

No.

Here is the Illinois senator's official statement responding to El Presidente's long overdue farewell:

 

If the Cuban leadership begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change, the United States must be prepared to begin taking steps to normalize relations and to ease the embargo of the last five decades. The freedom of the Cuban people is a cause that should bring the Americans together.

 

If the Cuban leadership.... Nowhere do I see in this latest pivot any concession to altering the status quo without the first gesture coming from Havana. Obama may have toughened up his rhetoric on the Communist regime as a way of performing damage control for the Che Guevara flag incident that embarrassed his campaign last week. But his statement is virtually indistinguishable from what Hillary Clinton said today:

I would say to the new leadership, the people of the United States are ready to meet you if you move forward towards the path of democracy, with real, substantial reforms. The people of Cuba yearn for the opportunity to get out from under the weight of this authoritarian regime, which has held back 11 million talented and hardworking citizens of the Americas. The new government should take this opportunity to release political prisoners and to take serious steps towards democracy that give their people a real voice in their government.

Not that Clemons or any of the other members of the Advent of the Lord political blogosphere would purposefully perpetuate a false distinction between the Messiah and the Bitch, of course.

As Deval Patrick might have phrased it, "Helms-Burton Act -- just policy."


 
DAILY SHVITZ

Shvitz Spritz: Who Isn't In Love with Jason Bourne?

Avi Kramer

 

  • "The Bourne Ultimatum" looking good [The Hollywood Reporter], and in the battle of the Jameses, Bourne could kick Bond's ass. [CNN]
  • Tour de France leader booted from the race after testing positive for a blood transfusion. [The Huffington Post]
  • Speaking in New Hampshire, McCain says his campaign is back on track. [The Boston Globe]
  • Considering a perjury investigation into Gonzales's testimony. [The Huffington Post]
  • Kanye West is a rural white guy. [Rolling Stone]
  • J.K. Rowling talks about the ending. [The New York Post]
  • Slate's Emily Bazelon on whether the left can reign in the Roberts Supreme Court. [Slate]
  • Raul Castro to address Cuba on Revolution Day. The interim president speaks behind a statute of his brother, Fidel. [The New York Times]