emma_goldman
23rd August 2006, 04:09
Fidel's Health and Implications for U.S. Policy
Mavis Anderson | August 18, 2006
IRC Americas Program Commentary
[Give us your feedback Americas Program, International
Relations Center (IRC) americas.irc-online.org]
Fidel Castro's recent announcement that he would
temporarily transfer power to his brother Raul and
others in the Cuban Government has led to much
speculation about the course of events in both Cuba and
Miami. With hard-line Cuban Americans dancing in the
streets of Little Havana, and even preparing boats to
sail to the island to foment unrest, the question on
everyone's mind is: does this signal the beginning of a
much-discussed transition for Cuba? And if so, what
will it look like?
The official press in Cuba adamantly rejects the use of
the word "transition" at all. And no wonder, with the
thrust of the recent U.S. "Commission for Assistance to
a Free Cuba" report indicating that succession is not
acceptable, but rather calling for a new transition
government in Cuba, approved by the United States.
Cuba maintains that Fidel Castro is "recovering
favorably" from intestinal surgery and will likely
return to his duties in a few weeks. In fact,
post-surgery photographs have recently been published
of the Cuban leader--talking on the phone and visiting
with Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and Castro's
brother, Raul (who had not been previously seen in
public since his ascendance to power on July 31).
It is difficult to ascertain just what form a
government, temporary or otherwise, headed by Raul
Castro, would take. Predictions have been all over the
map: more pragmatic, more likely to institute increased
military and security presence on the island, more
hard-line communist, more likely to open up
economically, more likely to crack down on dissent,
less likely to have the support of the Cuban people,
less likely to demonstrate political skill, less
charismatic, etc.
While this is mere speculation, the most important
factor for foreign observers to bear in mind is that
the organization and political orientation of the Cuban
Government and its leadership should be the decision of
the Cuban people--those currently living on the island.
This simple concept of self-determination, so jealously
defended in U.S. society, dictates that the United
States should not interfere in any way--openly or
surreptitiously behind-the-scenes--in Cuba's internal
affairs.
However, the Bush administration's recent second report
of the "Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba," and
high-level administration officials' comments after the
transfer of power, have overtly threatened Cuban
sovereignty. The report's interventionist policies move
the United States farther down the path of a failed and
outdated policy that has done nothing but attempt to
isolate Cuba, while keeping the United States and its
people in the dark about the island.
A more constructive response would allow U.S. citizens
freedom of association with our Cuban neighbors to form
constructive relationships. Freedom to travel, engage
in two-way trade, organize educational and cultural
exchange--to name a few of the basic liberties
currently denied U.S. citizens with respect to
Cuba--could lead to a positive role in the future of
Cuba. Today U.S. citizens cannot be a positive force
because they have no direct knowledge of Cuba due to
enforced separation and hostile foreign policy toward
the island.
These polices have galvanized anti-U.S. sentiment in
Cuba as well. Even Cuban internal opposition protests
U.S. interference in their country.
Miriam Leiva, wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe, one of the
75 Cubans who was charged and jailed for collaboration
with the United States several years ago, wrote about
Cuba's future in a July 15 Miami Herald op-ed entitled
" We Cubans Must Decide :" " ... It would be
extraordinarily helpful to lift the restrictive U.S.
measures adopted in 2004, which haven't produced
positive results ... I have never understood how a
country that has accumulated so much wisdom and has
been so flexible with former enemies has applied such
counterproductive policies to Cuba for 47 years ...
Only we Cubans, of our own volition and according to
the moment's conditions, can decide issues of such
singular importance."
Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo wrote about succession and the
future in an August 7 press release from his
organization, Cambio Cubano(Cuban Change): "The
recently issued document on the transition for Cuba,
produced under the auspices of the current
administration in Washington in an intrigue with
extremist factions in exile, breaks the most elemental
rules of international friendship, contravenes the
sovereign rights of civilized nations, and crudely
insults the history and the intelligence of Cubans. In
reaffirming our ethical, intellectual, and spiritual
repudiation of such a coarse and inconceivable
document, we wish also to make clear our faith that the
Cuban people are capable of gambling on a democratic
opening without ever abandoning their ancestral
devotion to Cuba's sovereignty."
The Cuban opposition also has ideas about the
transition that differ substantially from the U.S.
State Department version. In a recent op-ed in the
Washington Post, Oswaldo Paya, the initiator of the
Varela Project, a reform movement in Cuba, laid out
some of those differences: "We want to preserve the
right to free health care and education, and to expand
our rights to include freedom of religious education
and freedom of _expression. We do not want change if it
comes at the cost of paying a ransom to those in power,
allowing them to take control of the country's
resources, to define its values, to become millionaires
and to leave the people of the country in distress ...
There will be no uncontrolled privatizations, but there
will be a guarantee for the right of all Cubans to a
free economy, the right to have private enterprise, and
to trade freely. No one will be forced out of his home;
the law will prohibit evictions."
A response to the state of Fidel Castro's health and
the provisional delegation of his responsibilities from
nearly 10,000 people, including Nobel Peace Prize
winners, notable authors, religious leaders, and
political leaders, quotes U.S. officials' comments
regarding more aggressive forms of intervention. The
statement ends: "Faced with this increasing threat
against the integrity of a nation, and the peace and
the security of Latin America and the world, we the
signatories listed below demand that the government of
the United States respect the sovereignty of Cuba. We
must prevent a new aggression at all costs." (See
http://www.porcuba.cult.cu/index.php?lang=2.)
What appears to be most striking about recent events in
Cuba is how uneventful the leadership change actually
was. The succession, mandated by the Cuban
constitution, from President Fidel to First Vice
President Raul was smooth: no uprising in the streets
of Havana, no response on the island to Miami's call to
civil disobedience, no collapse of the Cuban system of
government, no rapid change to U.S.-desired and
U.S.-defined transitional government. Those who
expected a dramatic shift with the departure of Fidel
are out of touch with what is happening on the island.
And Fidel Castro has not yet disappeared from the
scene. While the succession may already be beginning,
and it is still possible that Castro may not return to
fully take back the reins of power, the likelihood
remains small for a bold move from other Cuban leaders,
including Raul, while Fidel is still a force in the
country. This transfer of power may indeed have been a
"trial run" for an eventual stable succession. The
Cuban people are perhaps being prepared for the moment
when Fidel Castro is truly absent, but it has just been
demonstrated that the change could be gradual,
peaceful, and responsible.
In light of all these events, a number of organizations
that work on U.S. policy toward Cuba have joined
together in sending out a call to the White House for
non-interference in the sovereign affairs of Cuba.
For the first time in 47 years, Cuba is undergoing a
transfer of political power, as President Fidel Castro
has temporarily turned the reins of government over to
his brother, Raul and other leaders of the Cuban
Government. No one knows whether Fidel Castro will
recuperate from his illness and return to office, or
whether Raul Castro and his leadership team will
continue in power.
But we do know this: the future of Cuba should only be
decided by the Cuban people themselves--those living in
Cuba, without interference by the United States or
others.
The Bush administration has set criteria for what an
acceptable post-Fidel Castro government in Cuba should
look like, and has committed funds to encourage a
transition to such a government in Cuba. This is wrong.
The United States should not interfere in any way in
Cuban internal affairs. Not only is it improper for the
United States to take actions that interfere with
Cuba's sovereignty, but these actions are likely to be
counter-productive.
In the past, groups within the hard-line Cuban-American
community have taken provocative and belligerent
actions to destabilize the political situation in Cuba.
U.S. authorities should take every appropriate step to
prevent these groups from launching any hostile or
provocative actions from U.S. soil.
At a time when events are unfolding in Cuba, we are
missing an incredible opportunity for Americans to
engage directly with Cubans. Under current policy, U.S.
citizens have very little contact with people and
institutions on the island. Cuban-Americans have lost
nearly all access to their own family members on the
island. Student study abroad programs have been all but
eliminated. Visits to the United States by Cuban
cultural groups and academics have been sharply
curtailed. And new restrictions have reduced contact
between religious groups in Cuba and their counterparts
in the United States. To understand and relate to
developments in Cuba, the Bush administration should
permit U.S. citizens to engage with Cuba, through
travel and trade, rather than continuing a failed
policy of isolation.
Now is the time for all of us to work together to make
our voices heard in Washington to ensure that the Bush
administration respects Cuba's sovereignty and
international law, and promotes peace by refraining
from interference in Cuba's internal political process.
The full message, including an action citizens can
take, can be found on the website of the Latin America
Working Group http://www.lawg.org.
Mavis Anderson is Senior Associate at the Latin America
Working Group at www.lawg.org and a contributor to the
IRC Americas Program, online at www.americaspolicy.org.
Mavis Anderson | August 18, 2006
IRC Americas Program Commentary
[Give us your feedback Americas Program, International
Relations Center (IRC) americas.irc-online.org]
Fidel Castro's recent announcement that he would
temporarily transfer power to his brother Raul and
others in the Cuban Government has led to much
speculation about the course of events in both Cuba and
Miami. With hard-line Cuban Americans dancing in the
streets of Little Havana, and even preparing boats to
sail to the island to foment unrest, the question on
everyone's mind is: does this signal the beginning of a
much-discussed transition for Cuba? And if so, what
will it look like?
The official press in Cuba adamantly rejects the use of
the word "transition" at all. And no wonder, with the
thrust of the recent U.S. "Commission for Assistance to
a Free Cuba" report indicating that succession is not
acceptable, but rather calling for a new transition
government in Cuba, approved by the United States.
Cuba maintains that Fidel Castro is "recovering
favorably" from intestinal surgery and will likely
return to his duties in a few weeks. In fact,
post-surgery photographs have recently been published
of the Cuban leader--talking on the phone and visiting
with Venezuela President Hugo Chavez and Castro's
brother, Raul (who had not been previously seen in
public since his ascendance to power on July 31).
It is difficult to ascertain just what form a
government, temporary or otherwise, headed by Raul
Castro, would take. Predictions have been all over the
map: more pragmatic, more likely to institute increased
military and security presence on the island, more
hard-line communist, more likely to open up
economically, more likely to crack down on dissent,
less likely to have the support of the Cuban people,
less likely to demonstrate political skill, less
charismatic, etc.
While this is mere speculation, the most important
factor for foreign observers to bear in mind is that
the organization and political orientation of the Cuban
Government and its leadership should be the decision of
the Cuban people--those currently living on the island.
This simple concept of self-determination, so jealously
defended in U.S. society, dictates that the United
States should not interfere in any way--openly or
surreptitiously behind-the-scenes--in Cuba's internal
affairs.
However, the Bush administration's recent second report
of the "Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba," and
high-level administration officials' comments after the
transfer of power, have overtly threatened Cuban
sovereignty. The report's interventionist policies move
the United States farther down the path of a failed and
outdated policy that has done nothing but attempt to
isolate Cuba, while keeping the United States and its
people in the dark about the island.
A more constructive response would allow U.S. citizens
freedom of association with our Cuban neighbors to form
constructive relationships. Freedom to travel, engage
in two-way trade, organize educational and cultural
exchange--to name a few of the basic liberties
currently denied U.S. citizens with respect to
Cuba--could lead to a positive role in the future of
Cuba. Today U.S. citizens cannot be a positive force
because they have no direct knowledge of Cuba due to
enforced separation and hostile foreign policy toward
the island.
These polices have galvanized anti-U.S. sentiment in
Cuba as well. Even Cuban internal opposition protests
U.S. interference in their country.
Miriam Leiva, wife of Oscar Espinosa Chepe, one of the
75 Cubans who was charged and jailed for collaboration
with the United States several years ago, wrote about
Cuba's future in a July 15 Miami Herald op-ed entitled
" We Cubans Must Decide :" " ... It would be
extraordinarily helpful to lift the restrictive U.S.
measures adopted in 2004, which haven't produced
positive results ... I have never understood how a
country that has accumulated so much wisdom and has
been so flexible with former enemies has applied such
counterproductive policies to Cuba for 47 years ...
Only we Cubans, of our own volition and according to
the moment's conditions, can decide issues of such
singular importance."
Eloy Gutierrez Menoyo wrote about succession and the
future in an August 7 press release from his
organization, Cambio Cubano(Cuban Change): "The
recently issued document on the transition for Cuba,
produced under the auspices of the current
administration in Washington in an intrigue with
extremist factions in exile, breaks the most elemental
rules of international friendship, contravenes the
sovereign rights of civilized nations, and crudely
insults the history and the intelligence of Cubans. In
reaffirming our ethical, intellectual, and spiritual
repudiation of such a coarse and inconceivable
document, we wish also to make clear our faith that the
Cuban people are capable of gambling on a democratic
opening without ever abandoning their ancestral
devotion to Cuba's sovereignty."
The Cuban opposition also has ideas about the
transition that differ substantially from the U.S.
State Department version. In a recent op-ed in the
Washington Post, Oswaldo Paya, the initiator of the
Varela Project, a reform movement in Cuba, laid out
some of those differences: "We want to preserve the
right to free health care and education, and to expand
our rights to include freedom of religious education
and freedom of _expression. We do not want change if it
comes at the cost of paying a ransom to those in power,
allowing them to take control of the country's
resources, to define its values, to become millionaires
and to leave the people of the country in distress ...
There will be no uncontrolled privatizations, but there
will be a guarantee for the right of all Cubans to a
free economy, the right to have private enterprise, and
to trade freely. No one will be forced out of his home;
the law will prohibit evictions."
A response to the state of Fidel Castro's health and
the provisional delegation of his responsibilities from
nearly 10,000 people, including Nobel Peace Prize
winners, notable authors, religious leaders, and
political leaders, quotes U.S. officials' comments
regarding more aggressive forms of intervention. The
statement ends: "Faced with this increasing threat
against the integrity of a nation, and the peace and
the security of Latin America and the world, we the
signatories listed below demand that the government of
the United States respect the sovereignty of Cuba. We
must prevent a new aggression at all costs." (See
http://www.porcuba.cult.cu/index.php?lang=2.)
What appears to be most striking about recent events in
Cuba is how uneventful the leadership change actually
was. The succession, mandated by the Cuban
constitution, from President Fidel to First Vice
President Raul was smooth: no uprising in the streets
of Havana, no response on the island to Miami's call to
civil disobedience, no collapse of the Cuban system of
government, no rapid change to U.S.-desired and
U.S.-defined transitional government. Those who
expected a dramatic shift with the departure of Fidel
are out of touch with what is happening on the island.
And Fidel Castro has not yet disappeared from the
scene. While the succession may already be beginning,
and it is still possible that Castro may not return to
fully take back the reins of power, the likelihood
remains small for a bold move from other Cuban leaders,
including Raul, while Fidel is still a force in the
country. This transfer of power may indeed have been a
"trial run" for an eventual stable succession. The
Cuban people are perhaps being prepared for the moment
when Fidel Castro is truly absent, but it has just been
demonstrated that the change could be gradual,
peaceful, and responsible.
In light of all these events, a number of organizations
that work on U.S. policy toward Cuba have joined
together in sending out a call to the White House for
non-interference in the sovereign affairs of Cuba.
For the first time in 47 years, Cuba is undergoing a
transfer of political power, as President Fidel Castro
has temporarily turned the reins of government over to
his brother, Raul and other leaders of the Cuban
Government. No one knows whether Fidel Castro will
recuperate from his illness and return to office, or
whether Raul Castro and his leadership team will
continue in power.
But we do know this: the future of Cuba should only be
decided by the Cuban people themselves--those living in
Cuba, without interference by the United States or
others.
The Bush administration has set criteria for what an
acceptable post-Fidel Castro government in Cuba should
look like, and has committed funds to encourage a
transition to such a government in Cuba. This is wrong.
The United States should not interfere in any way in
Cuban internal affairs. Not only is it improper for the
United States to take actions that interfere with
Cuba's sovereignty, but these actions are likely to be
counter-productive.
In the past, groups within the hard-line Cuban-American
community have taken provocative and belligerent
actions to destabilize the political situation in Cuba.
U.S. authorities should take every appropriate step to
prevent these groups from launching any hostile or
provocative actions from U.S. soil.
At a time when events are unfolding in Cuba, we are
missing an incredible opportunity for Americans to
engage directly with Cubans. Under current policy, U.S.
citizens have very little contact with people and
institutions on the island. Cuban-Americans have lost
nearly all access to their own family members on the
island. Student study abroad programs have been all but
eliminated. Visits to the United States by Cuban
cultural groups and academics have been sharply
curtailed. And new restrictions have reduced contact
between religious groups in Cuba and their counterparts
in the United States. To understand and relate to
developments in Cuba, the Bush administration should
permit U.S. citizens to engage with Cuba, through
travel and trade, rather than continuing a failed
policy of isolation.
Now is the time for all of us to work together to make
our voices heard in Washington to ensure that the Bush
administration respects Cuba's sovereignty and
international law, and promotes peace by refraining
from interference in Cuba's internal political process.
The full message, including an action citizens can
take, can be found on the website of the Latin America
Working Group http://www.lawg.org.
Mavis Anderson is Senior Associate at the Latin America
Working Group at www.lawg.org and a contributor to the
IRC Americas Program, online at www.americaspolicy.org.