History Repeating Itself?

Here are a few exercts from an article I found in the International Herald Tribune. Of course there is nothing to worry about, but isn't this all so reminsicent of the early 1960s and the run-up to the Cuban Missile Crisis? http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/08/04/europe/cuba.php

Prime Minister Vladimir Putin is calling for Russia to regain its influence with Cuba, a former Cold War ally of the Soviet Union, Russian news reports said Monday.

The statement was made amid persistent speculation about whether Russia was seeking a military presence in a country just 150 kilometers, or 90 miles, from the United States in response to U.S. plans to place parts of a missile defense system in Poland and the Czech Republic. It is not a secret that the West is creating a 'buffer zone' around Russia, involving countries in central Europe, the Caucasus, the Baltic states and Ukraine," the agency quoted Leonid Ivashov, the head of the Academy of Geopolitical Problems, as saying. "In response, we may expand our military presence abroad, including in Cuba."Russia opposes U.S. plans to put missile-defense elements in eastern Europe, saying the facilities are aimed at undermining Russia's missile potential. Russia has threatened an unspecified "military technical" response if the plans go through.

Last month, the Defense Ministry denied a major Russian newspaper's report that the country was considering placing nuclear-capable bombers in Cuba - a move that would have echoed the 1962 Cuban Missile Crisis.

CUBA: The Socialist vs. Capitalist debate

In the past weeks and months people have been trying to work out how far exactly Raúl Castro has been willing to push through reforms. Since he officially took over from his older brother Fidel, certain parts of the economy have been relaxed as to allow Cubans to purchase a whole host of consumer goods along with other small economic liberalizing steps (see "More reforms in Cuba")

Anyway does all this account to the “death knell” of socialist Cuba as we know it and the emergence of a new capitalist state, or rather as rational steps to perfect Cuba’s statist economy. This is the debate that’s been played out in a number of opinion pieces I’ve stumbled across in the British Press of late.

• Rory Carroll, “Cuban Workers to get bonuses for extra effort”, The Guardian, June 13, 2008


• Dr. Helen Yaffe, “Cuba’s wage changes have nothing to do with a return to capitalism”, The Guardian, June 20, 2008


• Marc Frank, “Cuba determined to perfect statist economy”, The Financial Times, June 23, 2008
  

Rory Carroll in his piece highlights the recent abandonment of Cuba’s egalitarian wage system - the idea that a taxi driver should in theory earn as much as say a doctor, or as Marx’s famous maxim goes, “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In the future pay rewards will be based on productivity and efficiency – from each according to his ability to each according to his work - thus curbing the inherent inertia of the Cuban economy. By emphasising continual poverty on the island seeing the Cuban economy as moribund he hints at the dire need of some form rejuvenation of the economy through liberalisation; something he likes to call “perestroikita” in reference to the liberalizing reforms undertaken by Gorbachev in the USSR

Dr. Helen Yeffe is quick to rebuke the perceived notion that Cuba is somehow on the long but inevitable path towards full-flung capitalism. The idea that everyone in Cuba has been paid the same is a myth, with pay rewards and wages dependent on your skills having been in place for decades. She then takes to task the idea that the Cuban economy is in some form of dire straits, showing off various statistics that highlight the impressive growth the Cuban economy has witnessed in the last few years. Of course this is then followed by the age-old pro-Castro argument that stresses the country’s impressive health, education and equality levels as to counteract the poverty levels in Cuba. The new salary incentives have little to with rejuvenating the economy but more as a means to reduce their vulnerability to the global food price crisis.

Finally the Financial Times comes with its own interpretation of recent reforms. All the reforms come under the banner of what is being coined perfeccionamiento empresarial – perfecting the state company system.

Perfeccionamiento empresarial is based on adopting modern management and accounting practices, often gleaned from the study of private corporations, for state-run companies. It grants management more authority over day-to-day decisions and imposes more discipline on workers while also increasing their participation in decisions and incentives for labour.

What this means in practice is hard to glean, but as far as the FT is concerned the debate as to whether Cuba is eschewing socialism in favour of capitalism has been decided.

A debate fostered by Raúl Castro has for now been settled in favour of those who want to improve one of the world’s most statist economies – not dismantle it.

And why should they abandon in a single sweep the foundations of modern day economy. Especially when the FT confirms that the Cuban economy is in such a healthy state.

Foreign exchange earnings are relatively strong due to the export of medical and other professional services – mainly to Venezuela – as well as tourism, high nickel prices and soft Chinese loans.

However we may wish to coin the policy directions of the Cuban economy, and trumpet them as evidence of socialism or capitalism surely this must be secondary to realizing that there never needs to be a one-size-fits-all solution to everything. In reality it is of little importance whether Cuba clings onto socialism, incorporates capitalism or finds some other middle way; as long as it works. I don't know to be quite honest, I just find it increasingly unproducutve for people to always to pigeon-hole things, be it socialism vs capitalism, left-wing vs. right-wing, or other such false dichtomies. Latin America has been awash with the by-products of this, be it Guatemala under Arbenz, Chile under Allende, and now the rise of the 'new Left' throughout much of Latin America. Why waste blood (literally), sweat and tears over labelling such governments one way or the other?

Good News, Bad News - from the ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’

Not long after Bush, Rumfelds et. al., creation of the so-called ‘Axis of Evil’ it became commonplace to come up with a whole host of other minor axes that were concocting various threats to US power. The ‘Havana – Caracas’ Axis is a case in point. An axis that joined the scheming socialist plans of Castro and Chavez, into some form of simmering Caribbean cocktail of menace. For more on this do read this paper, The Cuba-Venezuela Alliance: “Emancipatory neo-Bolivarismo or Totalitarian Expansion?




However, things aren’t as simplistic as this. Instead of a single narrative that highlights the increasing reality of this ‘Havana-Caracas Axis’ it seems that in recent months two slightly diverging narratives are taking place. One that exemplifies that spate of positive reforms undertaken by Raul Castro in Cuba. The other where Hugo Chavez remains demonized as the leader-in-chief of the ‘Bad Left’ taking the continent down a dark and well-trodden path towards inevitable failure. Read Obama’s recent view on Hugo Chavez’s Venezuela

No wonder, then, that demagogues like Hugo Chavez have stepped into this vacuum. His predictable yet perilous mix of anti-American rhetoric, authoritarian government, and checkbook diplomacy offers the same false promise as the tried and failed ideologies of the past. But the United States is so alienated from the rest of the Americas that this stale vision has gone unchallenged, and has even made inroads from Bolivia to Nicaragua (Remarks of Senator Obama: Renewing U.S. leadership in the Americas 23/05/08)

Every week now it seems as if yet another piece of Chavez legislation is branded about by the world press to exemplify his anti-democratic, anti-freedom credentials and entrench the ‘Bad Left’ narrative that Chavez personifies. This week for example it was all about,

a new intelligence law brought in by Venezuela's President Hugo Chavez has caused concern among rights groups who say it threatens civil liberties (BBC News 07/06/2008)

On the flip side, a week doesn’t seem to go by without a tale ofet more Cuban reforms that vary from allowing ordinary Cubans access to mobile phones to the implementation of gradual free-market policies. This week, news coming out of Havana highlights the change in attitude toward gay rights,

with reforms that could give Cuba the most liberal gay rights in Latin America, says the BBC's Michael Voss in Havana (BBC News 07/06/2008)

This cobbled together with the reaching out of Presidential hopeful, Obama, towards the Cuban regime, indicates a narrative that emphasizes how Fidel’s little brother Raul is far more likely to bring Cuba back into the international fold, and how bit by bit he is transforming the country for the better.

Fidel Responds to Obama

Naturally it didn’t take long for Fidel Castro to respond to Barack Obama’s recent policy outlines on Cuba (see previous posts: ‘Todos Somos Americanos’ or ‘Barack Obama on Cuba’). Unfortunately, or not, the response didn’t come in the form of his typical 2-hour long diatribes in front of the Cuban masses, but rather a measured critique in the form of his column – “Reflections by Comrade Fidel” – in the Daily Granma, the official newspaper of the Cuban Communist Party.

The title of the article, “The Empires’ Hypocritical Politics” leaves no room for misinterpretation of Fidel’s views on the US. However whilst such views have been on ‘repeat’ the last 50 years or so, it was interesting to read the few words of praise that fell Obama’s way. Here are a few excerpts:

• I listened to his speech, as I did McCain’s and Bush’s. I feel no resentment towards him, for he is not responsible for the crimes perpetrated against Cuba and humanity. Were I to defend him, I would do his adversaries an enormous favor.


• This [is a] man who is doubtless, from the social and human points of view, the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency.


• I am not questioning Obama’s great intelligence, his debate skills or his work ethic. He is a talented orator and is ahead of his rivals in the electoral race. I feel sympathy for his wife and little girls, who accompany him and give him encouragement every Tuesday.

But of course they were the numerous responses to the varying criticisms Obama himself made of Cuba. Too many for me to note here, however I did find it interesting how Castro highlights other areas in the Americas where injustice is being carried out – environmental crises, the food crisis - and questions how Obama, despite all his good words and intentions would tackle them. He then goes on to give his own interpretation on the current stand-off and how despite this, Cuba has achieved so much with so little. He finally seems to keep open the idea of cooperation with the US by stating, “We have never subordinated cooperation with other countries to ideological requirements.”

Both Obama’s and Castro’s opinions are interesting, though I doubt it really tells us anything fundamental about what an Obama presidency might mean for US-Cuban relations. So many actors and interest groups have their fingers in the pie that it’s almost impossible to work out now whether all these groups’ interests will all align themselves favourably, come the next few years, to bring to an end this long-standing conflict.

To read his full column click here.

Personally I wish he would syndicate his columns to newspapers here. Whether or not you agree with the things he writes, his eloquent writing and oratory style is still as unique and insightful as you’ll here from any political leader.

Todos Somos Americanos

“Ich bin ein Berliner”, was how John F. Kennedy in 1963, during the height of the Cold War, sought to reaffirm US support towards democratic West Germany shortly after the construction of the Berlin Wall.

Fast forward to 2008 and Presidential hopeful, Barack Obama, in a keynote speech on his proposed policies towards Latin America evoked a similar notion of solidarity (and use of a foreign language catchphrase…) by declaring: “¡Todos Somos Americanos!” (We are all Americans!)

Thankfully the situation vis-à-vis US-Latin American relations is hardly as problematic as US-USSR relations when Kennedy went to Berlin. However, Latin America has not only been a neglected continent under George Bush’s administration, but one in which a sense of US superiority and arrogance towards the region has left anti-Americanism throughout Latin America at its probably highest levels in a long time. This has facilitated, some would argue, the rise of certain leaders in the region who have gone out of their way to demonize the US, bypass any attempt to construct meaningful bilateral relations with the US, and consequently undermine US leadership in the region.

These were the issues that Barack Obama sought to address in his keynote speech, “Renewing US Leadership in the Americas” which he gave last week to the Cuban American National Foundation in Miami

If you have 30 minutes to kill here’s the speech in its entirety. Here also is a link to the transcript of the speech (Remarks of Senator Barack Obama: Renewing U.S. Leadership in the Americas). Here is a link to the official Barack Obama plan for Latin America (A New Partnership for the Americas)



Naturally the first half of the speech focuses on Cuba - he was giving the speech to an audience of Cuban-Americans. Cuba has been one of the most contentious policy issues in the Americas, and a policy area in which Obama has chosen a distinctively alternative path from that of John McCain. Whereas McCain has vowed to maintain the hard-line stand on Cuba, Obama has vowed to ease travel restriction and money remittances to the island and whilst not stating it explicitly, he has opened the door for future high-level talks with the Cuban government. That said his language was tough, resolute and unyielding in its criticism of the Castro dictatorship. Cuban-American votes are important as any demographic group for his Presidential campaign and thus any evidence of his willingness to engage with Cuba has to be countered by an ability to show that he will forcefully stand-up and demand change from the Castro regime. It’s a hard conundrum to fix, and undoubtedly one that will depend as much on the Castro brothers’ perception of Obama as Cuban-Americans willingness to back down and negotiate with Cuba.

More tough words were aimed at Chavez and those who may choose to take their countries down a similar path (i.e. Morales and Ortega). The rebuilding of relationships with Chavez depends, again, on how Chavez and the likes choose to view Obama. Chavez’s qualms are supposedly solely with George Bush, not with the US, so it remains to be seen how Chavez would respond to a leader who wishes to reassert US leadership in the region.

In general the speech was an obvious hark back to “Good Neighbour” policies of the 1930s and 40s or the Alliance for Progress programme of the early 1960s. Both Democratic Party initiatives that focused the importance on a stable and friendly Latin America, and a cordial relationship based on solidarity and an equal standing amongst all partners. Hence the slogan to underline Obama’s speech: “¡Todos Somos Americanos!”

Latin American politicians may benefit politically from their imbuing anti-American rhetoric, but no Latin American country can gain economically or politically from maintaining such an unwavering anti-American attitude. The realities of the American economic and political might, the historical and cultural ties that continue to link North and South are just too strong to wish away. Most Latin American politicians know this only too well and will undoubtedly be hoping that an Obama presidency will allow them the leverage, amongst their own electorates, to promote healthy relations with the US.

With all this said and done I do still find it hard to believe that US foreign policy toward Latin America is unlikely to be at the top of eitherPresidential candidate’s foreign policy priorities. The issues of Cuba, Haiti, Mexican immigrants, and Colombian narcotics will undoubtedly remain the main areas of engagement with Latin America.

So how willing is the US ready to convert good words into good deeds and help cast off the chains of poverty? These were pledges John F. Kennedy made almost 50 years ago in his Alliance for Progress, but which today still remain elusive in US relations toward Latin America. Will Obama really be able to fulfil the goals which so many US Presidents have promised but failed to live up to?

Barack Obama on Cuba

It’s quite often the case in US politics that Presidential contenders find themselves having to tone-down attitudes on certain policy areas in the game of capturing specific demographic segments of the electorate.

Such has been the importance of capturing the ‘Cuban vote’ in Florida and appeasing the influential Cuban lobby in Washington that any serious debate of normalizing relations with Cuba has become impossible from the outset.

“Change We Can Believe In” is the slogan Barack Obama’s campaign is forcefully promoting. Well, given the realities of US domestic politics, the importance of special interests and the need to gain favour with specific demographic groups it would be natural to be slightly sceptical as to how much change Obama really can bring about vis-à-vis Cuba. Particularly when policy toward Cuba has remained virtually unchanged and set-in-stone for the last 50 years.

Thankfully, from what I can gather from this CNN interview (see below) Obama really does want to readdress to Cuban debate and more importantly move towards some form of normalisation of relations.

Risky business? Well perhaps not. Obviously the intransigent policy of the 50 years has hardly been a resounding success. Raul Castro, unlike Fidel, has it seems a more pragmatic view on the world and will probably be more inclined to want to court Obama’s proposals. And then there is the make-up of Cuban immigrants in Florida. No longer are they solely 1st generation immigrants who hold Castro and his anti-democratic regime in the highest disdain, but 2nd and 3rd generation Cuban exiles, who perhaps don’t bare the same grudge against Castro. They too may feel inclined to question the irrationality of the long-standing and uncompromisingly strict measures that ban or severely curtail all the connections that bind other Latin American Diasporas with their homeland.

Anyway, here is a snippet of a CNN interview with Obama, so you can see for yourselves how he wishes to frame the Cuba question. If you stick to the end he also goes onto stake out his position on Iran which is also quite interesting…and refreshing.

More Reforms in Cuba

It really does seem as if Fidel Castro's Cuban Revolution is more likely to go out with a whimper rather than a bang. Since Raul Castro officially took over as President he has set in motion a number of reforms that may in future may lead Cuba down a path that seemed almost impossible when under the helm of Fidel.

Simple market principals are creeping up here and there. Most recently such measures as the ability for state workers to own their homes and pass them on to their children and wage limits being removed so as to allow more incentives.

Not so long ago the bans on purchasing electrical goods such as DVD players, mobile phones and microwave ovens were lifted. Not that I can see how the ability to purchase a microwave oven in the past could have in anyway undermined the Cuban Revolution and brought into danger.

Officially this step-by-step relaxing of the strict social economy is seen as a way to improve Cuban Socialism and by no means as an opening of the floodgates to full-flung ferocity of capitalism.

Despite these reforms supposedly being initiated by Fidel himself, Fidel has criticised what he terms people who worship selfishness. Referring to a report on wealth disparities in Romania - a former Communist country - he warns of the dangers of easy access to consumer goods.

Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia

With regard to Cuba, it seems that no matter whatever the debate of the day may be about, its defenders always seems to respond by highlighting the country's phenomenal health and education indicators. As much as those achievements must be applauded, it can at times become tiresome to hear proponents of Castro's regime use those achievements as a way to deflect any form of reasoned criticism. And whatever noble ideals the Cuban Revolution may have based on it would definitely be fair to say that they have over the decades off the rails, with or without US continued embargo and antoganism

That said with the rise of the Castro-Chavez Bolivarain axis (axis of evil or axis of hope?), the creation of ALBA as an alternative cooperation organisation, Cuba has again found a way to promote its astonsihing health and education policies. And stories like this - Cuba's aid programme in Bolivia -, about how Cuban doctors, bankrolled by Venezualan oil profits are doing wonders for the poor of Bolivia, only reaffirms that whilst so many may wish to see the end of the Castro regime, acts of solidarity amongst Latin American countries may be dearly missed.

The Cuban Economy at Crossroads: Fidel's Legacies and Raul's Alternative Paths

Of the many things the Institute for the Study of the Americas highlights as unique is their impressive seminar series. Many an afternoon the institute is visited by top Latin American scholars who are given the chance to spell out their latest theories and consequential musing on developments within evolving areas of study in the region. We students are encouraged to tag along, sit at the back quietly and observe what we one day may wish to be a part of. Today’s afternoon talk was no exception.

Carmelo Mesa-Lago an old hunched Cuban, whose student days in Havana were lived out amidst the actual Cuban Revolution, and whose CV lists 70 odd books and 200 plus articles on Latin American economics gave a talk titled, “The Cuban Economy at Crossroads: Fidel's Legacies and Raul's Alternative Paths”. Of all the seminars I had been attended so far here at the institute this was by far the most well-attended. Unsurpringly I suppose.
Because what is it about Cuba, of all the Latin American countries that constantly brings out the crowds? Go in to your local Waterstones, head towards the Latin American history section - if such a section even exists - and guaranteed 90% of the books on sale will be associated with the now mythical events of the Cuban Revolution or biographies depciting its equally mythical protagonists, Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. In Latin American terms, it’s an anomaly, geographically, culturally, historically and most definitely politically. Any study of Cuba does little to enhance our understandings of what may be considered the more typical Latin American states, their societies and their economies. Since the end of the Cold War, Cuba has been of little relevance in the grand scheme of things. Its economy, insignificant; its political weight, equally insignificant. So why should we continue to devote so much attention to Cuba, to continue to want to understand and ultimately to advise as to how this island best can tackle its uncertain future. It would be no revelation to note the leftist leanings amongst many Latin American departments so perhaps therefore it's no surprise that we all like to sit back and admire this plucky little island that took on the giant to the north , politically, militarily and ideologically. This socialist experiment was one that never became mired by the dreary Eastern bloc imagery of grey, uniform populations. No Cuba did socialism in style, under the palm trees, with Cuban cigars and Bacardi all to a Buena Vista Social Club soundtrack…or at least that’s the imagery we wished to bestow upon it. And if nothing else, we can supposedly bang on about its relatively high standards of health and education. But really these excuses and false impressions can only go for so long.

Slight tangent that…..but anyway Carmelo Mesa-Lago did much in his hour long presentation to dispel the myths of the current state of the Cuban economy. When Fidel eventually leaves us all he’ll be leaving behind an economy that is in desperate need of reform. Carmelo’s PowerPoint presentation, whilst low on clear informative bullet points, was high on deep complex economic data graphs (thankfully this week’s class in economics had brought me up to speed on my GDP’s and trade balances). Recent economic data shows that Cuba has seen impressive growth, but as far as Carmelo Mesa-Lago was concerned such data had been ‘manipulated’ by the Cuban government so as to hide its continual sluggish growth. In fact the whole presentation was based around looking behind the raw numbers of Cuba’s economy whilst basically coming to the conclusions that a) Cuba’s economy was not performing very well, b) that much of the Cuban economy was sustained by either unnaturally high commodity prices and Hugo Chavez’s generosity and c) that Cuba would be best off if Fidel finally decided to call it a day, and let his younger brother implement vital decentralizing and liberalizing economic reforms.
Admittedly pages full of confusing numbers and percentage points didn’t leave me nor much of the audience gagging for more. Instead his conclusions were meant by quite skeptical glances and belief that he was yet another of these economists that wished to do away with any form of state involvement in the state, let market forces do their thing. Perhaps audience members were unwilling to do away with the socialist dream, or perhaps they were making valid concerns as to not let Cuba’s admirable ambitions and ideology become swept away in one single stroke.

As far as I’m concerned the jury is still out. Cuba has to move on from what Fidel and all that he stood for, onto a system that is more sustainable and not dependent on the financial hand-outs that Hugo Chavez seems more than happy to continue with. Surely this can be achieved along with equal goals of maintaining a strong health and education system that has won Cuba so many accolades from abroad.