Passing of Fidel Castro

[LordAnubis]

This is not the place to have political debates about how good or bad a person is. A person has died. Do you have input to what you believe will happen now? Great, share it. If you want to have the mans babies or want to stab him with a rusty fork, keep your opinions to yourself. This is not the place to discuss them.

[SCgarman]

13 minutes ago, LordAnubis said:

This is not the place to have political debates about how good or bad a person is. A person has died. Do you have input to what you believe will happen now? Great, share it. If you want to have the mans babies or want to stab him with a rusty fork, keep your opinions to yourself. This is not the place to discuss them.

Then lock down this disgusting thread. It should not be discussion for cigar enthusiasts. This is not in keeping with the spirit of what this forum is about. My2c

[Baldy]

RIP Fidel.

There are those who hate him while others loved him.  Very few are neutral.  A life that had an impact.

[LLC]

He died the day after I left Havana; it would have been interesting to be out on the streets as news spread their.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Jimmy_jack]

I didn't intend to create a space for malcontent with this thread. Only wondered if there would be an ushering of change. Having never been to Cuba, I wouldn't know. Plus, I don't trust the news to report the truth, at least the US outlets. 

[Baldy]

1 minute ago, Jimmy_jack said:

I didn't intend to create a space for malcontent with this thread. Only wondered if there would be an ushering of change. Having never been to Cuba, I wouldn't know. Plus, I don't trust the news to report the truth, at least the US outlets. 

With what's happening in the US, it is wise not to trust US news outlets. 

For the last 8 years Fidel was mostly a symbol.  When that symbol is gone it will mainly affect people's emotion of him while very little policy change will occur. Change in Cuba (like Canada) is dependent on US-Cuba relationship.  That relationship is dependent on the egos of a few mainly in the US and a handful in Cuba.

[Bohn007]

Cigar Afficianado interview with Fidel Castro from 1994 http://www.cigaraficionado.com/webfeatures/show/id/A-Conversation-With-Fidel-6005

[Philc2001]

Change will be driven mostly by actuarial modeling. As long as risk of seizure and total loss exists, few corporations will subject their investors to the risks involved. A lot still has to be resolved regarding land titles and other grievances before that risk can be managed.

An other branch of change can grow organically by local entrepreneurial spirit, provided the conditions are ripe for it, but under a Castro that is unlikely.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Philc2001]

With what's happening in the US, it is wise not to trust US news outlets. 

For the last 8 years Fidel was mostly a symbol.  When that symbol is gone it will mainly affect people's emotion of him while very little policy change will occur. Change in Cuba (like Canada) is dependent on US-Cuba relationship.  That relationship is dependent on the egos of a few mainly in the US and a handful in Cuba.

The executive order has put relations on the path to mending, as long as it is not undone. But that only potentially opens a key target market, much more needs to happen to build sustainable confidence and lure investors. In the short term US tourists will give the Cuban economy a boost, mostly out of curiosity. But big investment in infrastructure will be the game changer long term, provided conditions allow for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

4 hours ago, Ryan said:

I'm not saying he was "good" or "a nice chap" or had policies that benefited everyone. Not by a long shot. But those things rarely define a successful politician. And by "successful" I only mean length of political career.

Most dictators are quite "successful" as to the length of their career. That's immanent in the system, I fear. Nothing that indicates any good or to be admired for. My TPs.

[Ken Gargett]

4 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

Ryan, there is much here I respectfully disagree with. The Castro regime is a totalitarian government that seized and maintained power by military and brutal force. In every coup there are loyalists, so when the dictator assumes power there are bound to be a sizable group of supporters, especially those who anticipate benefits, and many who have an axe to grind with their neighbors or former champions. But I think you are confusing that loyalty as popularity or in some measure as the will of the people. It isn't.

certainly little doubt he was a dictator who maintained power through force where necessary. but we sometimes forget that he replaced another brutal dictator, though a dictator with somewhat different "backing". he had enormous support in the early days, and much of that came from the hatred of the government he replaced. there are a great many reasons why things ended up the way they did, which is certainly not meant to excuse anything.

but, and this is not aimed at this poster or anyone in particular, agree with Mus. a bloke is dead. the entire forum needs to show a modicum of respect. other places to discuss his failures and successes.

[JohnS]

7 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

Most Cuban Americans, especially those that lost family or endured decades of hardship under him, would vehemently disagree.

Indeed, (here's) some further images of celebration...

And these nightclub patrons in Havana look confused after being evicted when the news came through...

[wabashcr]

It seemed in recent years to this casual observer that Raul was interested in more reforms and more warming of ties with the US but was somewhat hamstrung by his brother's rhetoric.  How this changes relations with the US will be fascinating to watch.

Agree 100%. He may have ceded power to Raul, but it's pretty clear his shadow still loomed large over the regime. At the most recent party congress in April, when many of Raul's reforms were reined in, it was at the behest of Fidel and his loyalists. Raul seems to have been walking a tightrope the last few years.

Of course Fidel's loyalists won't give up the ghost immediately upon his passing. It will still require gradual progress. He's certainly done his best to make things difficult for anyone to undo his legacy. But I do think his passing will in time help clear the way for more reform. I think it's likely many in power were content to bide time out of respect to Fidel, so he'd never have to see his revolution upended. With him gone, hopefully they can consider their future in a different light.

[MPS]

Another false prophet bites the dust. Let's hope this ushers in more freedom for the Cuban people.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[stogieluver]

There will be no real significant change in the Cuban economy until capitalists can invest their dollars and control the companies they start in Cuba.  That will not happen until they trust that the Cuban government, which presently owns by law at least 51% of all businesses in the country, will embrace Capitalism over Communism and Socialism, and will not once again confiscate their companies and capital. I don't see that happening anytime in the foreseeable future. 

Would you put your capital at risk knowing that it could be lost on the whim of the government? 

[garnett]

RIP

[NSXCIGAR]

It will be interesting to see the changes, if any, that occur following Fidel's death. I can only hope that Raul is willing to give a concession to Trump as it appears the concessions from the US side are likely to end in a few months. I pray Raul has a shred of decency in him and has been holding back something until Fidel croaked.

Fidel Castro was a dictator, plain and simple. The regime that he replaced was indeed corrupt and unfair to the Cubans, however two wrongs don't make a right. A decent case could be made that the lot of the average Cuban was better at the end of the Bautista regime than it ever was under the Castros--certainly before 2010 or so when at least some 21st century technology began appearing there. But Fidel never delivered the better life he implicitly promised to the Cubans. Socialism is so ineffective it wasn't even better than the putrid, corrupt but still semi-market based regime it replaced. 

Cuba has never really had true sovereignty, and the US had been interfering in its political affairs since it gained independence from Spain. The Cubans have never been free of the yoke of other countries or the yoke of totalitarianism. They desperately need to be educated in what are essentially the principles of the western enlightenment--individualism, private property, self-government and freedom--lest they embrace another cult of personality or flawed social system. The world languished for 1000 years because of a lack of these principles and without them societies will continue to languish. 

The best way for this to happen is to lift all sanctions on Cuba allowing the Cubans as much access to knowledge and culture of the west as possible. Sanctions--while well-intentioned--almost never accomplish their goals. it punishes the citizens while the elites are mostly unaffected, particularly in a dictatorship where the people can't even vote out the leader. North Korea is strangled with sanctions, yet Kim Jong Un eats Kobe beef, drinks Dom Perinon and smokes Cohibas with Dennis Rodman while 90% of the population eats tree bark to survive. And it provides the leaders with the scapegoat they need to keep the population believing the reason they are poor is the west. Totalitarian propaganda 101. 

[SCgarman]

9 hours ago, Philc2001 said:

The executive order has put relations on the path to mending, as long as it is not undone. But that only potentially opens a key target market, much more needs to happen to build sustainable confidence and lure investors. In the short term US tourists will give the Cuban economy a boost, mostly out of curiosity. But big investment in infrastructure will be the game changer long term, provided conditions allow for it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mr. Trump will nullify all executive orders, and US/Cuba relations will recede back to the way things were. Our new POTUS will not bow to dictatorship regimes.

[aes8]

Lots of 'RIP' well wishers in this tread.  I'd like to respectfully take the other side of that trade and wish that he does NOT rest in peace.

As a brutal dictator that imprisioned and oppressed so many people I wished he would have died in a fire instead of peacefully at old age.

[Ken Gargett]

29 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

It will be interesting to see the changes, if any, that occur following Fidel's death. I can only hope that Raul is willing to give a concession to Trump as it appears the concessions from the US side are likely to end in a few months. I pray Raul has a shred of decency in him and has been holding back something until Fidel croaked.

Fidel Castro was a dictator, plain and simple. The regime that he replaced was indeed corrupt and unfair to the Cubans, however two wrongs don't make a right. A decent case could be made that the lot of the average Cuban was better at the end of the Bautista regime than it ever was under the Castros--certainly before 2010 or so when at least some 21st century technology began appearing there. But Fidel never delivered the better life he implicitly promised to the Cubans. Socialism is so ineffective it wasn't even better than the putrid, corrupt but still semi-market based regime it replaced. 

Cuba has never really had true sovereignty, and the US had been interfering in its political affairs since it gained independence from Spain. The Cubans have never been free of the yoke of other countries or the yoke of totalitarianism. They desperately need to be educated in what are essentially the principles of the western enlightenment--individualism, private property, self-government and freedom--lest they embrace another cult of personality or flawed social system. The world languished for 1000 years because of a lack of these principles and without them societies will continue to languish. 

The best way for this to happen is to lift all sanctions on Cuba allowing the Cubans as much access to knowledge and culture of the west as possible. Sanctions--while well-intentioned--almost never accomplish their goals. it punishes the citizens while the elites are mostly unaffected, particularly in a dictatorship where the people can't even vote out the leader. North Korea is strangled with sanctions, yet Kim Jong Un eats Kobe beef, drinks Dom Perinon and smokes Cohibas with Dennis Rodman while 90% of the population eats tree bark to survive. And it provides the leaders with the scapegoat they need to keep the population believing the reason they are poor is the west. Totalitarian propaganda 101. 

my point about replacing bautista was not to suggest he has provided a better govt but simply that it contradicted the assertion that there was little or no popular support for castro at that time. there was. sadly, it has not gone well.

it is, of course, all far more complicated than it appears today. i do believe that there was widespread cuban support for fidel in the early days. we forget that fidel first turned to the States and was rebuffed - apparently they were only interested in their own dictators. fidel did not come in with the anti-american/anti-western bias we have seen for so long. the americans wanted him out and took certain actions. he responded to those american actions, they responded, so did he. next thing we have the russians involved and half a century of cuba being made to sit in the corner (yes, all a very great over-simplification). it is absurd that the sanctions/embargo was not lifted decades ago. by not doing so, the americans then gave castro an absolute gift for decades to maintain power. there have been pluses - health, education - and many negatives. though very hard to see it as a success in any real respect over the long term, with the one exception that he got rid of a truly appalling dictatorship. and one thing for which he is never given credit, but if you read the history books it does seem not in contention ('one hell of a gamble' is an absolute cracker for anyone interested, though there are plenty of great books on him, the crisis, cuba et al) - fidel was the one who was the moderate voice when it came to the missiles during the crisis. che is on record as trying very hard to convince the russians to launch but fidel talked them down (it may have not been for long had things not been resolved, of course). for what it is worth, che was an utter looney better off in a rubber room at the bottom of the ocean and all those deluded dills wandering around in che t-shirts thinking they are keeping alive the voice of peace and love should be with him.

i would agree with you re the lifting of sanctions. but i do think that there are occasions where they play a vital role (cuba does not appear to be one of them). south africa was very much a case in point and paradoxically, the States, so keen on sanctions here, were very late to the party there. but that is now hardly more relevant than a historical footnote. you talk about the concessions cuba needs to give to the US. short of whacking raul behind bars (stranger things but don't hold your breath), can i ask what concessions they need to give? the States is the country which has imposed the embargo. it is really up to them.

 

[NSXCIGAR]

2 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

i would agree with you re the lifting of sanctions. but i do think that there are occasions where they play a vital role (cuba does not appear to be one of them). south africa was very much a case in point and paradoxically, the States, so keen on sanctions here, were very late to the party there. but that is now hardly more relevant than a historical footnote. you talk about the concessions cuba needs to give to the US. short of whacking raul behind bars (stranger things but don't hold your breath), can i ask what concessions they need to give? the States is the country which has imposed the embargo. it is really up to them.

Agreed, not arguing there wasn't support for Castro prior to and during the revolution. Also, agree on Che. A volatile revolutionary for revolution's sake.

I believe Fidel was certainly a "victim" of the strong anti-communist movement in the 1960s. The best course of action for the US would have been simply to let the Soviets, Vietnam and Cuba collapse on their own as China essentially did in the 70s. You don't really need a trade embargo with communist countries because they don't produce anything anyone wants to buy and consequently can't afford to buy anything from you. But you're correct that Fidel was essentially under attack, and responded. And at the time, sanctions were believed to be the proper course of action. Now we have 50 years of the experiment to Monday morning quarterback it, but in 1962, it was going to happen and did happen. It should have been repealed at the time of Helms-Burton in the late 90s, but just like the war on drugs which had failed after 30 years, the idiot politicians doubled down on it. 

Regarding sanctions in general, there have been several wide-ranging international studies over the years that have called into question their empirical effectiveness. Easily found via a google search.

As for the concessions, that's going to be up to the Donald. He's taken a very hard line on Cuba and Iran, so I'd expect every Obama concession to be duly revoked unless Cuba shows a serious concession in Trump's eyes. I fear that Trump's standards are going to be very high. He's just itching to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal which Iran has almost certainly been cheating on and re-impose those sanctions. However, I don't underestimate Trump's ability as a deal maker and I think if anyone can maybe persuade ego-maniacal world leaders, he can. He's made plenty of deals with ego-maniacal billionaires and dealt with many foreign interests and leaders. I just don't know if he sees Cuba as a priority, but we shall see how things develop. I'm not optimistic, however--at least in the short term.

[Ken Gargett]

21 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

Agreed, not arguing there wasn't support for Castro prior to and during the revolution. Also, agree on Che. A volatile revolutionary for revolution's sake.

I believe Fidel was certainly a "victim" of the strong anti-communist movement in the 1960s. The best course of action for the US would have been simply to let the Soviets, Vietnam and Cuba collapse on their own as China essentially did in the 70s. You don't really need a trade embargo with communist countries because they don't produce anything anyone wants to buy and consequently can't afford to buy anything from you. But you're correct that Fidel was essentially under attack, and responded. And at the time, sanctions were believed to be the proper course of action. Now we have 50 years of the experiment to Monday morning quarterback it, but in 1962, it was going to happen and did happen. It should have been repealed at the time of Helms-Burton in the late 90s, but just like the war on drugs which had failed after 30 years, the idiot politicians doubled down on it. 

Regarding sanctions in general, there have been several wide-ranging international studies over the years that have called into question their empirical effectiveness. Easily found via a google search.

As for the concessions, that's going to be up to the Donald. He's taken a very hard line on Cuba and Iran, so I'd expect every Obama concession to be duly revoked unless Cuba shows a serious concession in Trump's eyes. I fear that Trump's standards are going to be very high. He's just itching to pull out of the Iran nuclear deal which Iran has almost certainly been cheating on and re-impose those sanctions. However, I don't underestimate Trump's ability as a deal maker and I think if anyone can maybe persuade ego-maniacal world leaders, he can. He's made plenty of deals with ego-maniacal billionaires and dealt with many foreign interests and leaders. I just don't know if he sees Cuba as a priority, but we shall see how things develop. I'm not optimistic, however--at least in the short term.

i think you might have nailed it - doubtful it is a priority for him. or perhaps he will see it as an easy target to show his "strength".

of course, all this would be moot if he had made it as a baseballer.

[Smallclub]

8 hours ago, NYgarman said:

 Our new POTUS will not bow to dictatorship regimes.

[CaptainQuintero]

I was going to stay away from this as it seemed to be quickly swirling down the toilet but happily it's come back to a nice discussion. I think Ken hit on quite a few points that are not necessarily spoken about in some countries. A friend of mine posted this yesterday and bring up a number of interesting points:

"He stood up to US power and undermined US dominance across the region by supporting popular forces who were opposed to other US sponsored dictatorships, like Somoza in Nicaragua.

America's beef with Castro had nothing to do with an alleged international communist conspiracy. The decision to overthrow Castro and subvert the revolution was taken in March '60, over a year before Cuba alligned with the Soviets, and at which time the US considered Castro to be "neutralist" and anti-communist.

Castro eventually aligned with the Soviets in May '61, but only after the US had severed diplomatic and trade relations with Cuba and implemented a campaign of harassment and terrorism against the population, as well as a failed invasion attempt the previous month, and all while trying to isolate Cuba from the international community by way of sanctions. Cuba was effectively forced into the arms of the Soviets as their last lifeline.

Its interesting to examine the real motivations for US hostility against Cuba. According to Mark Curtis, the British position on the '59 Cuban Revolution, as revealed through declassified reports was:
 

"A new explosive form of radical nationalism has appeared in Cuba which may well influence policies of other governments and possibly cause further revolutions...There is a danger that Cuba's neutralist anti-American example may be followed by some other Latin American states."

The US Joint Intelligence Committee wrote a year later:

"Castroism still retains much of its popular appeal. If, in the longer term, the Cuban revolution succeeds in achieving a stable regime which appears to meet the aspirations of the depressed classes, there will be a serious risk that it will inspire similar revolutions elsewhere in our sphere of influence in Latin America."

 

By 1970 the JIC was noting Cuba's "dramatic social improvements, eg in the virtual eradication of illiteracy and unemployment and in the fields of health and education", etc. Cuba was not just defying US power, they were providing an alternative economic model, not without success, and which could inspire other developing countries to abandon a US-dominated capitalist system and take a more independent path of development. This was intolerable to US power and a grave threat to US business interests.

The CIA noted:

"The extensive influence of 'Castroism' is not a function of Cuban power...Castro's shadow looms large because social and economic conditions throughout Latin America invite opposition to ruling authority and encourage agitation for radical change"

As a result the US State Department Policy Planning Staff warned:

"the primary danger we face in Castro is...in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries....The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the United States, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half" [since the Monroe Doctrine in 1823, when the US declared its intention to dominate the hemisphere]

Basically the US was scared that its entire system of control would come crashing down, and like the domino theory suggests, US-sponsored dictators and proxy regimes in the region would fall one by one if populations elsewhere were inspired and motivated by the Cuban example. Many were and faced brutal US violence as a result. Castro started off with noble intentions then when in power, like many, he fell into it's cold grasp and became utterly consumed by it and the crimes he committed in order to keep control began to rise. But he still did things which made him loved by a lot of his people. Healthcare and education was world class and something that all South American nations looked to aspire to and had to make difficult decisions weighing up the pros and cons of choosing a side."

 

Personally I think Cuba will struggle for a long time to come. It doesn't matter who is in charge, a nation that doesn't have utterly entrenched democratic values will always be open to abuse from leaders, benevolent or not. Simply because it has no benchmark to measure a leader or political system against or to hold account to. Cuba has never really been free in it's history and the list of dictators and overlords is one long list. Every nation on that list is a cause of the one which follows right up to the current problems, and from where I stand the nation is still going to be a chess piece to be played around with by bigger nations, none of whom actually have any care for the people who live on the island.

For the person, obviously he did some horrible things and some good things. I don't think I have the experience to form much of a personal opinion on him, it's too complicated unless you have personal involvement. I do believe in the saying 'judge a man by the company he keeps' and I think that sums up just how much of a divisive figure Castro was: he was life long friends with Nelson Mandela and held court with some huge civil liberties campaigners

at the same time he kept company with people who committed horrific crimes.

There's so many layers to the man that I think it's a question that will never be fully answered. I think however that propaganda, from whichever side, blurs the picture to the point where it's pretty much moot beyond he was a product of his times.

 

[Bohn007]

8 minutes ago, sarkozy said:

He was a dictator, serial philanderer, murderer as well as being throughly corrupt and corrupting. He had no redeeming features and should be remembered as belonging to the infamous list of twentieth century tyrants that includes Mao, Pol Pot, Hitler, Stalin and Lenin. May he RIH.

No different than half of the governors of Illinois and several U.S. Congressmen.