Cuba
I guess I'm on a thing about disproportionately powerful voting blocs and lobbies these days. First, I was complaining about the pro-Israel bloc; now there's the Cuban-Americans. Not all of them, I'm sure, but the ones who were celebrating in the streets of Miami at the news that Castro had given up some of his authority to his brother and probable successor.
Let's not forget that Fidel Castro, at the time of the revolution he led, was supported by the United States. There was a reason why the United States would support Castro: Fulgencio Batista, the despotic ruler he overthrew, was not a nice man. Batista had seized power, and his regime had pursued repressive policies. He was another one of those banana republic dictators Americans loved to hate, and the United States government was glad to see him go. In fact, if Castro hadn't announced that he was a Communist, he might have become the poster child for American support of revolutions in Latin America and the Carribean. But Castro was a Communist, and he quickly made Cuba a client state of the Soviet Union.
At that point, the United States, unwilling to have a Communist nation ninety miles from our shores--at least our southern shores--severed connections, broke off diplomatic relations, and set up an embargo. The intent, apparently, was to starve the Cuban people into overthrowing Castro. The catch was that Cuban people were pretty much used to starving, and the embargo didn't materially change their way of living. Castro, of course, became as repressive of opposition as Batista--and most dictators--become, and many Cubans bolted to Florida. But there's one thing to remember about dictators: they can fall. It takes one determined person willing to give his or her life to do the job. And Castro is pushing eighty after almost fifty years in power.
The Cubans in America have hated Castro for almost all of that time. But there's a Cuban restaurant a few miles from my home where the names of prominent Cuban-Americans are displayed on the walls. Most of them, regardless of their fields of endeavor, are huge economic successes. Granted, Cuba has not been, since 1959, a free market economy, but it's still fair to ask whether any of the millionaires and billionaires would have enjoyed so much success in Cuba. But the success that many enjoyed in the United States didn't stop them from detesting Castro and behaving as if they would happily leave for Cuba in a heartbeat. And they put pressure on politicians.
An online chat on the Post website made the point that in other countries that went Communist, the United States pursued a policy of maintaining relations. Gradually, the Communist regimes in those countries crumbled and they became more democratic and more capitalistic. In Cuba, the embargo was supposed to bring about the overthrow of Castro and the return of democracy. It has failed miserably. Why has the government stuck with a policy that has never shown any signs of success? Because the wealthy, vocal Cuban American voting bloc, filled with hatred of Castro, supports it. Meanwhile, Castro keeps on ticking. In fact, he's set up a program to train United States citizens to be doctors provided that they promise to work in impoverished areas. This hardly makes him a saint, but it shows how much he is moved by the embargo.
Lifting the embargo would actually improve the lives of the Cuban people, and it probably wouldn't make life much more pleasant for Castro. Given some time, it might well bring democracy and economic prosperity to Cuba, and the United States is these days in the business of exporting democracy. The Russians aren't going to put missiles in Cuba again as they did in 1962; burying the United States is not a priority for them. The Cuban Americans who wanted to would have the option of going back to Cuba, although it might be nice for them to leave behind the wealth they amassed in their adopted country.
Let's not forget that Fidel Castro, at the time of the revolution he led, was supported by the United States. There was a reason why the United States would support Castro: Fulgencio Batista, the despotic ruler he overthrew, was not a nice man. Batista had seized power, and his regime had pursued repressive policies. He was another one of those banana republic dictators Americans loved to hate, and the United States government was glad to see him go. In fact, if Castro hadn't announced that he was a Communist, he might have become the poster child for American support of revolutions in Latin America and the Carribean. But Castro was a Communist, and he quickly made Cuba a client state of the Soviet Union.
At that point, the United States, unwilling to have a Communist nation ninety miles from our shores--at least our southern shores--severed connections, broke off diplomatic relations, and set up an embargo. The intent, apparently, was to starve the Cuban people into overthrowing Castro. The catch was that Cuban people were pretty much used to starving, and the embargo didn't materially change their way of living. Castro, of course, became as repressive of opposition as Batista--and most dictators--become, and many Cubans bolted to Florida. But there's one thing to remember about dictators: they can fall. It takes one determined person willing to give his or her life to do the job. And Castro is pushing eighty after almost fifty years in power.
The Cubans in America have hated Castro for almost all of that time. But there's a Cuban restaurant a few miles from my home where the names of prominent Cuban-Americans are displayed on the walls. Most of them, regardless of their fields of endeavor, are huge economic successes. Granted, Cuba has not been, since 1959, a free market economy, but it's still fair to ask whether any of the millionaires and billionaires would have enjoyed so much success in Cuba. But the success that many enjoyed in the United States didn't stop them from detesting Castro and behaving as if they would happily leave for Cuba in a heartbeat. And they put pressure on politicians.
An online chat on the Post website made the point that in other countries that went Communist, the United States pursued a policy of maintaining relations. Gradually, the Communist regimes in those countries crumbled and they became more democratic and more capitalistic. In Cuba, the embargo was supposed to bring about the overthrow of Castro and the return of democracy. It has failed miserably. Why has the government stuck with a policy that has never shown any signs of success? Because the wealthy, vocal Cuban American voting bloc, filled with hatred of Castro, supports it. Meanwhile, Castro keeps on ticking. In fact, he's set up a program to train United States citizens to be doctors provided that they promise to work in impoverished areas. This hardly makes him a saint, but it shows how much he is moved by the embargo.
Lifting the embargo would actually improve the lives of the Cuban people, and it probably wouldn't make life much more pleasant for Castro. Given some time, it might well bring democracy and economic prosperity to Cuba, and the United States is these days in the business of exporting democracy. The Russians aren't going to put missiles in Cuba again as they did in 1962; burying the United States is not a priority for them. The Cuban Americans who wanted to would have the option of going back to Cuba, although it might be nice for them to leave behind the wealth they amassed in their adopted country.
posted by amsterdr at 3:41 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home