The Geek has to wonder if the Commander Guy and the neocon ninnies around him have noticed that Cuba--and the Castro boys--have been slogging on despite our ever present disapproval. He also has to scratch his head over the warning issued today by the CG sternly telling Fidel that the US will not continence his turning power over to little brother Raul.
Hasn't anyone mentioned to the encapsulated Decider that effective transfer of power has already occurred? Isn't that what the National Intelligence Czar is supposed to do? Isn't that one of the reasons the US has an enormous intelligence community?
Or, is the Commander and Decider pursuing some arcane political advantage with the aging expatriate Cuban community in Florida? In the alternative, have some of the nagging neocons with their visions of democracy and free enterprise in action yet undimmed by the dust of Iraq once again gained control of the current administration's decision-making loop?
At the moment, the latter seems probable given the invocation of the march of democracy through Latin America.
Ahh, yes! Democracy in action. Gotta love it.
Democracy brought Hugo Chavez to the presidency of Venezuela. It (aided by Chavez' closing of opposition radio and television stations and a host of questionable election practices) gave birth to the changes in the Venezuelan constitution giving authoritarian powers to the neo-Castroite.
Democracy in action has brought about neo-Castroite regimes in Ecuador and Bolivia.
What does the current administration think? Is it convinced that blowing the same ancient warnings and implied threats will bring about democracy in action in Cuba? Is it somehow convinced that by doing this the results of democracy in action in Venezuela, Ecuador, and Bolivia will be rolled back?
The evil synergy of ideology and perceived domestic political gain has powered some of the worst foreign policy errors in US history including the "Who-Lost-China?" debacle which shackled US policy in Asia for decades to say nothing of the forty-eight years of stupidity regarding Cuba.
If the US really wants to constructively engage Cuba, and the three neo-Castroite regimes in South America, it has to change its diplomatic and rhetorical course. Continuation of elderly, long proven to be ineffective postures is not only ideologically blind and intellectually bankrupt, it is counterproductive to the max.
There is nothing hard to understand about that.
Is there?
American national interest in Latin America and the Caribbean basin is furthered by open, authentic dialogue which is free from ideological cant. It requires that the deep thinkers at the policy level have ears as well as mouths.
The governments and peoples of Latin America do not constitute a monolith. Each nation has a different history, varied needs, separate priorities, and, never forget this, a unique, subjectively defined national interest.
Nothing hard to understand about that.
Is there?
Cuba and the Cubans have been living with the consequences both good and bad of the success of the 26th of July Movement for two generations now. There have been no, repeat, no genuine, large scale indications of dissatisfaction. If the Castro boys were the icky-poo repressors of Cuba, coups would have been attempted, insurgent movements would have populated the hills.
This hasn't happened. Even though the US stood ready, willing, and somewhat able to foster and assist wannabe over throwers of the Evil Island Empire as events of the early 1960s demonstrated.
Yes, the internal security establishment in Cuba is pervasive and effective. But, not that effective.
History has shown that no government can be totally effective at total repression over time. For a few years, yes. For a couple or three decades, probably. Day after day for a half century? Not likely.
This implies strongly that the Castro regime has what we Americans like to call the "consent of the governed." That means that most, if not all, Cubans see their regime as possessing either or both existential and functional legitimacy. To Cubans, or at least a critical mass of them, the current regime of the Castro brothers is their government, indigenous, organic, not imposed from without. Further, to the Cuban people, or at least a critical mass, the current regime delivers a satisfactory enough overall quality of life.
Ironically, the existential legitimacy of the Castro regime has been enhanced over time by the unyielding opposition of the United States. Administration after administration has failed to understand that pressure consolidates the political will and cohesion of the target population long before it shatters it.
The Commander Guy's stern speech would assure the overwhelming election of Raul Castro if elections were to take place tomorrow.
(Hint to the Cubans: Why not try it? Why not put the current administration to the ultimate test? Have an election. Go ahead, elect Raul, if that's who you want. Ask Jimmy Carter to monitor the election. That would put the current administration in the put-up or shut-up whipsaw.)
In the spirit of even-handedness, the Geek has a hint for the current administration. (Well, to err on the side of accuracy, two of them.)
Hint number one: Elections are a nice idea perhaps. But, democracy is not a panacea. It never has been. Elections bring good results. They are equally likely to bring bad ones. Elections can be and often are shams. They have no inherent white magic. So, current administration, quit pandering to a myth. Ask yourselves, what are we going to do if Raul or someone else like him wins an election in Cuba?
Hint number two: (Pay attention now, this is a several step hint.) Great Powers--like the United States--have long term national interests which are best served by a world order which is stable, predictable, and manageable over time.
Long term interests, history shows, are not, repeat, not served by hectoring another country. Neither are they served by attempting to export our systems and the myths that support them by coercive methods.
History also shows (in Cuba, Nicaragua, Iran, the Philippines among others) that the long term stability so needed by a Great Power is not served by supporting or fostering tin plated dictators who promise short duration order.
Finally, history shows beyond even the irrational doubts of neocon ninnies that the greatest of Great Powers can have meaningful impact upon another country's social and political institutions only by working with the organic, indigenous trajectories which have developed within that country. The changes within a society or polity have both direction and inertia.
The inertia of human myths, beliefs, institutions is greater than any in the physical world. Get a grip on that.
The trajectories of the Cuban people cannot and will not be changed by stern words out of Washington. Fidel knows that. As a result, he rejected the words even before they were officially uttered.
Unfortunately for us the Commander Guy isn't is smart as the aging, ailing Cuban.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
For a gut-wrenching account of how Cubans keep their dissidents quiet, read (if you haven't) Against All Hope by Armando Valladares, a poet who endured more than 20 years in Castro's gulag.
The Geek has not only read the cited book, he has had in years gone by opportunity to debrief a number of individuals who had fallen foul of the Castroite internal security establishment. The Geek is no fan of Fidel and many others at the high and mid-rank levels of the regime.
He maintains that the behavior of the latter group to say nothing of the sufferings of the first might, repeat, might have been modified significantly if the US had not followed a failed policy for the past two plus decades.
As mentioned in a previous post, the initial decision of the Eisenhower administration to send Castro's Cuba to diplomatic isolation was in response to political outrage over revolutionary excesses and expropriation of American property. The decision was worsened by believing the tales of early exiles about the instability of the regime.
This gave rise to the Bay of Pigs debacle and the ongoing campaign of destabilization, assassination plots and invasion plans that helped bring about the Cuban Missile Crisis. Even though the world got through that one alright, an argument can be made that the US would have been well-advised to engage Castro along with the Soviets.
After the Missile Crisis our policy became set in concrete--in large part because of the increasing political potency of the Cuban ex-pat community.
As Nixon had the credentials to shift policy regarding the PRC 180 degrees so any or all of the post Carter Republican presidents could have done the same with respect to Cuba. None did, for various reasons none more important than the dictates of domestic politics. It's handy to have Cuba to kick around.
Cuba under Castro has been a major annoyance and a trouble maker in the Western Hemisphere as well as in Africa. Pretending Cuba does not exist has not served our interests--or those of the Cuban people.
One need not approve a regime in order to engage it constructively. That is a basic principle of diplomacy. One can only hope to change a regime over time through patient dialogue and a judicious mix of positive and negative incentives. That is a lesson of history.
The other, more critical lesson of history is that outside pressure only consolidates the political cohesion of a regime and its people. It's like making a snowball out of a handful of loose flakes. Pressure over time turns flakes into a mass and ultimately into a very hard ball of ice.
Diplomatic/economic/rhetorical and even military pressure does the same to a state or a political movement and its citizens or members.
Post a Comment