Farewell Fidel, Hola Raul! But please, Sen. Obama, there's nothing to talk about yet
Wednesday, February 27, 2008 Free Headline Alerts
UNITED NATIONS — After nearly a half century as the undisputed dictator of Cuba, Fidel Castro has stepped down from power. The 81 year old leader, in poor health for some time, was formally nudged from his post as President by his anxious 76 year old brother Raul who was unanimously selected as President by Havana’s rubber-stamp National Assembly. For Fidel though, after 49 years as Maximo Leader, the move represents the end of an era, but sadly not yet the end of Cuba’s communist political system.
Fidel Castro ruled the Caribbean island of Cuba since 1959 or before most of his citizens were born! He led in the style of a classic Latin American caudillo but with added communist ideological fervor and revolutionary rhetoric. Castro’s Cuba soon assumed all the trappings of a totalitarian regime — the nationalizations, the forced land seizures, the political prisoners, the shortages and the massive outflow of refugees. As a Cold War comrade of the Soviet Union, Castro willfully put Cuba on a collision course with his American neighbors, but nonetheless still outlasted ten American presidents.
In his political heyday he served as the patron of bloody communist insurgencies in places such as El Salvador and Nicaragua in Central America and dispatched his regular army to support African regimes in Angola, Ethiopia, and Yemen. Diplomatically he controlled the so-called Non Aligned Movement, and at the UN held the world record for the longest speech.
But the collapse of the Soviet Union and Fidel Castro’s major political patron signaled wider austerity and hardships for the long-suffering Cuban people. In recent years Castro cultivated socialist Hugo Chavez a political protégé in Venezuela, who has kept Cuba afloat through low cost oil and aid. Canadian tourists and European Union trade, maintained a cash flow and commerce. The People’s Republic of China served both as a political comrade but as ironically, an inspiration for emerging economic pragmatism.
Fundamentally Fidel’s step-down signals the change in personality style but not the substance of the socialist state. Castro’s once flamboyant charisma aside, Fidel could not work the same magic to improve his moribund Marxist economy nor could he bear to allow political freedoms to his citizens. Thus the political system remains the same but with his dour and but more pragmatic brother Raul having formally assumed full power.
American reaction to Fidel Castro’s departure in Havana was predictably cautious but stressed the need for genuine political reforms over stability. There were no hints that the U.S. trade embargo, slapped on Castro’s regime back in 1962 was going to be lifted any time soon. The economic embargo has probably reinforced Castro’s political regime through allowing tighter domestic controls and encouraging hard-line nationalism. Some pundits now suggest that easing or lifting the embargo would offer an opportunity to break the deadlock between Washington and Havana.
I disagree. Rewarding Cuba’s Marxist “monarchy” for the dynastic transition from Fidel to Raul Castro is hardly justified. It’s true that Raul has hinted that he favors a more open economy along the lines of communist China; in other words economic flexibility and commercial realism which are planned to maintain tight political control. America should not underwrite nor reward such a Marxist musical chairs ploy by Cuba’s un-elected leaders by tinkering with the embargo until there’s significant movement on human rights, religious freedoms and lifting of press censorship. And what of free and fair elections?
The issue of Washington’s long-strained relations with Cuba has arisen during the Presidential campaign, and the questions of meeting with the Cuban dictator or lifting the economic embargo have been raised. Democratic candidate Barack Obama offered to meet with Raul Castro “Without precondition.” Contender Hillary Clinton wisely told an audience at George Washington University, “We simply cannot legitimize rogue regimes or weaken American prestige by impulsively agreeing to president level talks that have no preconditions.”
Indeed American Presidential candidates should not play the tempting political game of the imponderable policy “What Ifs?” In the midst of a campaign, candidates can be pulled into the rhetorical vortex of besting each other of what they would promise to do. Such comments in the heat of an U.S. election contest would not create policy but would encourage unrealistic expectations in both America and Cuba. This is a delicate diplomatic task for the next Administration, not an election gambit, fleetingly aware of the consequences.
Suggesting a dialogue with Cuba’s new dictator in a bid to gain votes may lead to giddy optimism about the genuine capacity for change. Let Cuba’s new government prove itself and, then there may be a political sea change across the Florida Straits with the new American Administration.