Castro Part II
In Tuesday's Post, Eugene Robinson offered the following on Cuba:
"Reform-minded Cuban officials used to whisper to me that soon there would be a private market in real estate, but Fidel would never allow it. I think he likes a system in which everyone has a roof, though it's leaky, and surgeons live next to bricklayers in crumbling tenements.
Most Cubans aren't allowed to buy new cars, even if they have the money. I used to think this was just a method of control, but I came to believe that Castro probably smiles when he sees the fortunate few who do have cars stopping to pick up the hitchhikers who gather at almost every intersection. The scene brings the communist ideal to life: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.'"
Robinson’s remarks suggest a markedly different mindset in Cuba, perhaps one that is, for the time being, irreconcilable with American notions of government (representative democracy), economics (capitalism), and, ultimately, statecraft. As I wrote before, Cuba is different – much different. They’ve spent the past fifty years living in a political and social vacuum, drafting domestic and foreign policy with a long-term, self-serving agenda constantly in mind. An example? Castro associated with the USSR for thirty years because Moscow delivered oil, grain, and iron ore – not because Castro believed in the righteousness of his pseudo-communist brethren. Cuba, unlike other communist states, was not a “puppet state” of the Second World. She stood alone, borrowing here and there, but always remaining loyal to an underlying idea.
Discussions have already begun in Washington about how – there never was a question of if – to best “participate” in the “redevelopment” of Cuba. Obviously, I am not privy to these conversations, but I seriously doubt they’re headed in the right direction. American perspectives on Cuba are misguided and, most importantly, subject to a painfully obsolete rejection of communism in all its forms. Point of emphasis: Cuba is not just another broken state led by a cookie cutter dictator.
Unless policy-makers revamp their idea of Cuba, we are in for yet another failed attempt at statecraft. Scholars warned that you cannot institute democracy in Islamic states (or any non-secular state for that matter), and now we have Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Scholars warned against installing capitalism in former communist states, and now we have Putin’s reforms and Romanian corruption. The “old way” didn’t work in Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, and Liberia, and it won’t work in Cuba.
It’s time for a different approach that is pulled, not pushed.
"Reform-minded Cuban officials used to whisper to me that soon there would be a private market in real estate, but Fidel would never allow it. I think he likes a system in which everyone has a roof, though it's leaky, and surgeons live next to bricklayers in crumbling tenements.
Most Cubans aren't allowed to buy new cars, even if they have the money. I used to think this was just a method of control, but I came to believe that Castro probably smiles when he sees the fortunate few who do have cars stopping to pick up the hitchhikers who gather at almost every intersection. The scene brings the communist ideal to life: 'From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.'"
Robinson’s remarks suggest a markedly different mindset in Cuba, perhaps one that is, for the time being, irreconcilable with American notions of government (representative democracy), economics (capitalism), and, ultimately, statecraft. As I wrote before, Cuba is different – much different. They’ve spent the past fifty years living in a political and social vacuum, drafting domestic and foreign policy with a long-term, self-serving agenda constantly in mind. An example? Castro associated with the USSR for thirty years because Moscow delivered oil, grain, and iron ore – not because Castro believed in the righteousness of his pseudo-communist brethren. Cuba, unlike other communist states, was not a “puppet state” of the Second World. She stood alone, borrowing here and there, but always remaining loyal to an underlying idea.
Discussions have already begun in Washington about how – there never was a question of if – to best “participate” in the “redevelopment” of Cuba. Obviously, I am not privy to these conversations, but I seriously doubt they’re headed in the right direction. American perspectives on Cuba are misguided and, most importantly, subject to a painfully obsolete rejection of communism in all its forms. Point of emphasis: Cuba is not just another broken state led by a cookie cutter dictator.
Unless policy-makers revamp their idea of Cuba, we are in for yet another failed attempt at statecraft. Scholars warned that you cannot institute democracy in Islamic states (or any non-secular state for that matter), and now we have Hamas and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. Scholars warned against installing capitalism in former communist states, and now we have Putin’s reforms and Romanian corruption. The “old way” didn’t work in Iran, Iraq, Vietnam, and Liberia, and it won’t work in Cuba.
It’s time for a different approach that is pulled, not pushed.
posted by Dr. Cook at 9:13 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home