Time for U.S. to end sad era with Cuba

[Jimmy2]

Time for U.S. to end sad era with Cuba

By Leonard M. Goldstein

Eugene Robinson wrote recently concerning the elevation of Raul Castro to the top spot in Cuba, “Maintaining rigid policy toward Cuba wrongheaded” (May 29).

He suggested the possibility and probable desirability of revising relations with our neighbor.

I would go further and ask that we totally depart from one of the worst foreign policy decisions we have ever made. The decision made by President Eisenhower and maintained by successors Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton and Bush 2 originated from the country’s obsessive fear of communism and the Cold War. Fidel Castro, who while marching victoriously toward Havana, denied that he was a communist but did not take long in shedding his camouflage once he took control.

But what has our painting Cuba as the Latin leper accomplished other than ensuring the suffering of the Cuban populace and satisfying the emotional needs of “Little Havana,” an island inside of Miami?

In order to appreciate what Fidel Castro meant to the working class Cuban, we need to review Cuban history.

The island was discovered, inhabited by Indians, by Columbus in 1492 and Diego Velasquez completed the Spanish conquest in 1512. Spain governed the territory for the next nearly 400 years. Then in 1898, the United States wanted a piece of this rich pie, hence the Spanish-American War. In 1906, Theodore Roosevelt named William Howard Taft as U.S. governor. Military forces were sent to Cuba in 1912 and again in 1917 to quell local fighting for freedom and independence.

In 1921, U.S. Gen. Enoch Crowder entered Havana on the battleship Minnesota and set a date for a national election. Once more, this intervention was unwelcome and condemned by the Cubans. By 1933, a large part of the land and sugar industry was owned by Americans while Spaniards controlled the trade centers.

On May 25,1925, Gerardo Machado became president and by 1933 using brutality to crush the opposition, he felt secure in his position. But in August of that year a military rebellion forced his resignation. Next, in our heavy-handed dealing with Cuba, Ambassador Sumner Welles invited leaders of a secret political group called ABC to take part in the new government. This was done without consulting with the new President Carlos Cespedes.

Sgt. Fulgencio Batista enters the picture in September 1933 when he took control of the army and thus begins his climb to the presidency in 1940. He lost an election to Ramon Grau, who defied the U.S. and supported middle and lower class Cubans who had been exploited consistently since the Spanish conquest.

But Batista engineered a coup in 1952 and cancelled upcoming scheduled elections. Once more, we lined up with the wrong guys and recognized Batista’s government.

By the late 1950s Americans controlled 90 percent of the mines, 80 percent of public utilities, 50 percent of the railroads, 40 percent of sugar industry and 25 percent of the bank deposits.

Fidel Castro’s arrival was met with mixed emotions by the separate elements of Cuban society. Those who had languished in poverty and illiteracy for centuries welcomed the new leaders. The upper class and professionals who had done well under the brutal regimes of Machado and Batista left for Miami in force, concerned about the goals of the new government and their means of achievement.

There is no question that it didn’t pay to be in opposition to Fidel and as yet, we don’t know if Raul will be any different – although there are some promising signs.

But if one considers the plight of the present-day average Cuban as compared to the pre-Castro period, one has to recognize some progress. Cuba has one of the highest literacy rates among all countries.

Medical care is available to everyone. The Cuban constitution has been amended and permits the free exercise of religion. Small mom-and-pop enterprises are permitted.

Cuba is poor, partly because of socialist economic policy but principally because we made it our mission to destroy Castro by punishing the Cuban people. While it can be argued that the Chinese would do better economically under a modified capitalistic system, no one can dispute Chinese economic success. So why do we do this?

Well I suppose that in the beginning we were uncomfortable having a Soviet satellite 90 miles away but that concern disappeared long ago. Today, the only justification is to satisfy the fat cats who prospered under Cuban tyrants and were not going to do very well under the intruder. After all, they, in “Little Havana,” can (and did) decide national elections.

We can hope that some day there will be politicians with courage enough to take the risk and make decisions determined by what is right for our country.

[Chaki]

Very interesting read.

Thanks for posting these articles, Jimmy.

[El Presidente]

» Cuba is poor, partly because of socialist economic policy but principally

» because we made it our mission to destroy Castro by punishing the Cuban

» people. While it can be argued that the Chinese would do better

» economically under a modified capitalistic system, no one can dispute

» Chinese economic success. So why do we do this?

Thanks Jimmy.

Cuba is principally poor because of a ridiculous economic and political system which destroyed incentive, crippled opportunity and promoted fear towards anyone not compliant.

Embargo was and is a millstone yet faced with the wrath of the US, intelligent internal policy could have just as easily motivated an ingenious, hard working, prosperous and intellectually vibrant community.

[n2advnture]

» Cuba is principally poor because of a ridiculous economic and political

» system which destroyed incentive, crippled opportunity and promoted fear

» towards anyone not compliant.

»

» Embargo was and is a millstone yet faced with the wrath of the US,

» intelligent internal policy could have just as easily motivated an

» ingenious, hard working, prosperous and intellectually vibrant community.

I agree pres. Time magazine listed Fidel as one of the richest in the world a few years ago. I don't believe the embargo punished neither the cuban government nor the cuban people - the cuban government punished the cuban people.

Like Jimmy pointed out, if cuba modeled their government and economy after the chinese (which I believe they will be doing now) that the people of cuba could of had a greatly improved lifestyle.

Thanks for posting this articles instead of just linking them Jimmy, I dig reading them without leaving FOH.

~M

[Jakester]

Pres and n2adventure,

You guys are both WAY off base. Why, the next thing you know, you'll both be saying that individuals are actually responsible for their own actions . . . . : )

[brooklyn]

I concur; despite past interventions, the fifty year communist rule stifled incentives and repressed indigenous business/thought/innovations.

[harryleech]

» » Cuba is poor, partly because of socialist economic policy but

» principally

» » because we made it our mission to destroy Castro by punishing the Cuban

» » people. While it can be argued that the Chinese would do better

» » economically under a modified capitalistic system, no one can dispute

» » Chinese economic success. So why do we do this?

»

» Thanks Jimmy.

»

» Cuba is principally poor because of a ridiculous economic and political

» system which destroyed incentive, crippled opportunity and promoted fear

» towards anyone not compliant.

»

» Embargo was and is a millstone yet faced with the wrath of the US,

» intelligent internal policy could have just as easily motivated an

» ingenious, hard working, prosperous and intellectually vibrant community.

Hmmm... I gotta disagree. You have to take the Cuban revolution of the late 50's and early 60's in the context of the time that they happened: The revolution happend for very valid reasons (many of the same that caused my own country to rebel from British colonial occupation and oppression in the 1920's) but initially wasn't a 'communist revolution.' After it became clear that nationalising American industries that for all intents and purposes enslaved Cuban workers wasn't going to be too popular in the US with American politicians (granted in retrospect this may have not been the best of policies in the long term) then the Cubans aligned themselves with the only other super-power at the time; the USSR (CCCP.)

The embargo merely condemed Cuba to a time warp of the 1960's: Without trade with the US what were Cuba's other options? Unlike the comparisons that people make with China or even Vietnam, America has not had an embargo against these countries for the last 45 years! America trades with China, who has far more draconian policies towards it's citizens, yet condems Cuban citizens to a lifetime of backwardness: It offers the people of Cuba two terrible options: 'Give in and admit that we're better' or stay stuck in 1960's politics. TIme and time again on the international stage it has been proven that engaging with relatively moderate governments (as opposed to complete extremists) is the way forward in terms of progress to a democratic process: Tell people that it's your way or the highway and more often than not, they'll take the highway. Ireland did in 1916 as did America in 1776. If America (the leader in world trade and one of the most important political influnces internationally, as well as Cuba's closest potential trade partner) stopped treating Cuba like a bold child, then Cuban politicians would have a reason to stop acting like parodies of a 1960's soap opera from Eastern Europe and would have to hand over power to a new, slightly less ridiculously outdated generation. As it is, successive American politicians just keep proving that the Cuban government's paranoia about American interference in Cuban domestic affairs is correct.

The biggest handicap in the last 40 years though has to be the massive trade incentives that the USSR offered Cuba after the US decided to embargo Cuba; once these dissapeared Cuba was screwed, but at the same time China had the option of doing business with the US; as it turns out, that was better for everyone (Chinese and American alike) , as dropping the embargo against Cuba would be for all involved.

Still though, I love a good D4, despite all this political rubbish ;-)

[Chaki]

Whatever our opinions are about what caused Cuba to be in a sad and sorry state (communism or the US embargo) -and like El Prez I tend to believe it is the former- I think we can all agree that the embargo did not work.

In my book, any policy that did not produce the expected outcome (end the Castro regime) for 50 years is a failure. So maybe there is a case for replacing it with a policy of engaging with the country and trying to bring changes gradually. Look what happened with Libya for instance.

[harryleech]

» Whatever our opinions are about what caused Cuba to be in a sad and sorry

» state (communism or the US embargo) -and like El Prez I tend to believe it

» is the former- I think we can all agree that the embargo did not work.

» In my book, any policy that did not produce the expected outcome (end the

» Castro regime) for 50 years is a failure. So maybe there is a case for

» replacing it with a policy of engaging with the country and trying to

» bring changes gradually. Look what happened with Libya for instance.

I've just realised that I came over quite serious in my last post: Happens when I type after a couple of bottles of Rioja and a RA Gigantes :-)

I agree with you that if something hasn't worked for 50 years, change it. I suppose the point that I was trying to make was that the embargo has enabled communism on the island for the last 50 years (and has given Fidel etc a bogeyman 90 miles north.) If the US quit trying to force change I think it would happen quite fast as there seems (from my few visits there) that there is a real desire for change from within. And Cubans, like all island people don't like being told what to do by their bigger neighbours!