Subscribe to Common Dreams News Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Missing the Boat on Cuba
On one of my visits to Cuba on UN-sponsored health-related missions I received one of my most useful foreign policy lessons from a young Cuban. On learning that my group came from the U.S., he told us, "Americans don't understand Cuban reality. They can get more changes in Cuba with Levi jeans than with an armed invasion."
His commonsensical reflection is in stark contrast with the U.S. government Cuban policy. The election of president Obama raised hopes that there would be a dramatic change of policy towards Cuba. After all, in April of 2009 he had said that it was time to end "old ideologies and stale debates."
The recent release by Havana of 20 political prisoners and its promise that it would release 32 more hasn't elicited a commensurate reaction from the U.S. At the same time, Ricardo Alarcón, the president of the Cuban Parliament, declared that Cuba would later release all political prisoners not guilty of criminal acts. This had been one of the most critical demands of the U.S. government.
However, with the same passion that an old person still feels for a youthful love affair, the U.S. government has persisted in a policy that has brought it only derision, particularly in Latin America. The lack of benefits has been of no concern to several U.S. administrations.
Except for the U.S., the whole world perceives that Cuban policies have remained unchanged in the face of the 50 year-old embargo; nor has the embargo improved the quality of Cuban lives. Instead, it has brought enormous hardships to the Cuban people and allowed the Castro brothers to exert tighter control on the population.
Much can certainly be blamed on the Cuban government, such as repression and imprisonment of political dissenters and economic policies that have only exacerbated the Cubans' difficult situation, many living from remittances of relatives overseas. But these policies are not worse than similar or even more punishing policies on countries such as China, with which the U.S. has normal trade relations.
Miguel Angel Moratinos, Spain's Minister of Foreign Affairs, recently declared in Madrid that the release of Cuban prisoners may very well lead to a significant change of the European Union's policies towards Havana. He also stated, "We will change the European Union shared position on Cuba and we expect that this will lead to a lifting of the U.S. blockade of that country."
The Cuban government has already participated in more than 200 joint ventures with foreign corporations, although none of them is American. At the same time, there are also offices and representatives in Havana of over 500 companies from around the world. U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba reached a peak of $710 million in 2008 a small amount compared to potential sales under regular conditions. Representative Collin Peterson, chairman of the House Agricultural Committee is supporting a bill, now making the rounds in Congress, which would normalize trade with Cuba and end the embargo.
Arguably, Florida anti-Castro community would be incensed by such a change and the president would lose support of some important legislators. However, the younger Cuban Americans don't share the older generation opinion of the conflict with Havana. Should the administration take decisive action to end the embargo it may gain the President some significant support, once its advantages become clear.
Cubans would not be the only ones to benefit. At a time of scarce and expensive energy resources, a new estimate by Cubapetróleo (CUPET) raises the oil off its shores to 20 billion bbl. in Cuba's northwest coast. Even a smaller amount could contribute to alleviate U.S. energy needs.
To persist on the wrong course of action, one that hasn't produced any significant results in 50 years is like following a sophomoric policy regardless of the suffering it has caused the Cuban people. It is an inexcusable policy for a superpower.
14 Comments so far
Show AllYep, the Florida Cubans did not have the guts to fight for their country, so they came to the US and expected someone to do it for them. C'est la vie, como es la vida.
Our conservative Christian nation would rather starve the Cuban Cubans than be a Good Samaritan.
For years I have advocated the Gulf Coast Circle, a tourist destination, driving route that would go through the US, Mexico and Cuba with a couple of ferry rides. I wish we would love our neighbor Cuba!
bligh4
I have always thought the embargo was a stupid idea, and one that obviously has not worked. Not much of an embargo anyway, as the U.S. is the number one food importer to Cuba-and the Cuban government can buy anything it needs from other countries such as Canada.
Get rid of it and send them Levi's like the young Cuban said...
"On learning that my group came from the U.S., he told us, "Americans don't understand Cuban reality. They can get more changes in Cuba with Levi jeans than with an armed invasion."
Is there any possibility this kid would care to immigratre? We could use someone like that in the State Department. Someone with a brain.
The Cuban embargo is one of our most ignorant ideas since 1955. Tourism, trade, naturals between us.
Think of the advantages for everyone.
The U.S. doesn't have normal relations with Cuba simply because corporate America fears Cuba. This is because a fifty year old embargo, countless attempts by the U.S. to overthrow the government and no natural resources in Cuba to speak of (except for recent finds of oil) have not prevented Cubans from enjoying universal healthcare, (including dental), food allowances, jobs for everyone and a much higher literacy rate than in the U.S. What corporate America fears is that this working socialist model could easily spread to the rest of Latin America and quite possibly to the U.S. Therefore it is imperative for American multinationals to demonize Cuba at every chance and prevent Americans from discovering the benefits of socialism by travelling there. The corporate media wholly embraces this war of propaganda with the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Matt Drudge and other corporate lackeys bad mouthing Castro at every chance they get.
Because our government is a government plutocracy rather than a government who represents the public interest, there is no way that any foreign policy change will occur towards Cuba until both the Democrats and Republicans are kicked out of office.
It's interesting, this assumption that if Cuba and America improve relations, Cuba will go crazy for consumerism. Many who have left Cuba wanted to live in that society. Some in Cuba want that type of society. What country in Cuba's position is realistically going to get that type of society in today's world? Provide a single viable option Cuba could take that wouldn't come at the expense of the progressive policies that have been implemented as a result of the Cuban Revolution? Creating a more participatory democracy is one thing, which many other countries in Latin America are trying to implement.
Many Americans who go to Cuba will have gone to other poor countries. What lessons will they draw when they compare the lack of malnutrition in Cuba, relative to other poor countries? What lessons will they draw from seeing Cuban health care in person and comparing it to other poor countries' health care? What things will surprise them when talking with actual Cubans? What myths will it shatter? I don't think the effect will be so one sided, like so many in the US assume.
This comment really got me though: "U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba reached a peak of $710 million in 2008 a small amount compared to potential sales under regular conditions."
The above quote might be good for the US, especially agricultural corporations who receive large amounts of US subsidies, but what effect would it have on Cuba's farmers? Their urban agriculture? Does Mexico provide a warning? Would the costs of "market reforms" in Cuba outweigh the benefits to the general public?
Reform if the Cuban people want certain reforms. I just don't think the US will accept certain types of reforms. Some reforms will come at the expense of Cuba's social programs. I think many Cubans are aware of this, but I could be wrong.
Therein lies danger. Remember what NAFTA did to the small farmer in Mexico.
The Cubans could and can do as they please about trade. embargo silliness is an embarrasment. Let the Cubans consume as they please or not, that is what a free society is for.
That Cuba's Medical Care may or may not be that good. I have seen reports both ways but both sides may have been biased.
"Cuba could take that wouldn't come at the expense of the progressive policies that have been implemented as a result of the Cuban Revolution?"
If those policies and reforms are so fragile...should they survive?
"If those policies and reforms are so fragile...should they survive?"
If democracy matters, yes. Policies could be fragile not because the majority of people don't want them enacted, but because forces more powerful than they can force policies on them that they have no choice but to accept.
Our Social Security is "fragile" for the same reasons. The program is fine by itself, and will be for decades. Powerful forces however want to eliminate the program all together, to privatize it. Has nothing to do with what people want, the program has broad support from the public. It doesn't even have anything to do with being able to finance it. What Western Europe has decided to do in the face of the economic crisis (sever austerity) has nothing to do with what their populations want and would not benefit the countries, economy or people as much as available alternatives (which economists like Michael Hudson, Dean Baker, Mark Weisbrot and Robin Hahnel have written about). Those alternatives don't benefit those in power and the financial interests who control the economy.
"That Cuba's Medical Care may or may not be that good."
The WHO says it is, especially relative to other developing countries. The UN says as much. The World Bank says so well. No one claims that Cuba has a good of health care as Western Europe (the WHO says it does have a good a system as the US though, you might not like that). Regardless, for a poor country, their advancements in health and their biotech industry are undeniable success stories. You can claim anything you want against people you ideologically disagree with. Facts that are objectively verifiable (which organizations like the UN, World Bank and WHO have done) DO matter though.
As I said, the effects would not be one way as many in the US claim. I'd love to go to Cuba, to see it for what it is with my own eyes.
I'd love to go with you so we'd both know the truth. I hope they do have as good a health care system as ours. I hope its more available than ours. We should have had a Single Payer system if it weren't for the Pelosi Pimps.
"Powerful forces however want to eliminate the program all together, to privatize it"
Point made. Look what they have done to our economic system and we had strong protections. Emphasis on "had"
I wouldn't trust the World Bank any further than I could throw the thieves. The UN is NOT known for their veracity. Now the WHO is another matter.
The US says Cuba is not free and that is why I can't go see.
US Justice is for chimps!
Castro's Cuba can certainly be criticized for its treatment of dissenters. But where is the country that successfully waged a revolution against US influence, maintained its revolution, and managed freedom of speech?
I see no one closer than Chavez and Morales, and these are recent examples.
I see posts comparing the Cuban health system to that of the US. Though it compares well, it is absurd to treat this as an apples-to-apples comparison. Cuba is poor; the US is wealthy. Cuba is under blockade; the US is not. Cuba's health care is doing somewhat better, but that should not be taken as a small victory.
Compare it rather to the system in Haiti, where the US has a greater history of intervention than any other spot in the hemisphere. Haiti had its revolution, but has fallen back into dominion, despite the efforts of Aristide and others.
Compare it rather to Colombia, the second-most American-run country in the hemisphere.
Compare it to Nicaragua, where the Sandinistas allowed their people to vote for what amounted to surrender, during an election called "free" despite the threat of continued blockade by US mercenaries fueled by the US black ops' cocaine trade.
Measured by the quality of the lives of its citizens, Cuba is one of the more humane provinces in Latin America. Admittedly, that is not a very high bar to clear. But there is some irony in making even valid criticisms of Latin American countries while the US keeps threatening any attempt towards progress.
..
Another point:
Our young Cuban, sadly, is naive. The US has no interest in sending Levis to Cuba. The US wants Cuba to make the Levis and send them to the United States.
What the US embargo and the collapse of the Soviet Union did was to force Cuba to live within its ecological means. And the people have been doing an admirable job so far and there is really **nothing** they need from the outside to live a decent life. As a tropical island with a great climate, they can grow all their food. Cuba is less than half the size of the United Kingdom, but their population density is also less than half of the UK. From Wikipedia:
"Cuba's birth rate (9.88 births per thousand population in 2006) is one of the lowest in the Western Hemisphere. Its overall population has increased continuously from around 7 million in 1961 to over 11 million now, but the increase has stopped in the last few decades, and a decrease began in 2006, with a fertility rate of 1.43 children per woman. This drop in fertility is among the largest in the Western Hemisphere"
Cuba's ecological footprint is exactly where it should be - around 2 global hectares (gha) per person. What this means is that it takes about 2 hectares of land within Cuba and elsewhere to support the Cuban lifestyle and to process their waste - including the forest area needed to absorb their carbon emissions. Globally, that's how much is available per person. So, if everyone lived like the Cubans, then we would need exactly one planet. And if every human lived like the average Amercan, then we would need 5 planets. You can see a color-coded map that shows which countries are living within their fair share of ecological footprint here:
www.happyplanetindex.org/explore/global/footprint.html
So, big deal that the Cubans don't consume so much, but what about their quality of life? I'm glad I'm on the right forum here - so I'll just say that Cuba is doing fine as per certain basic indicators that go on to make up the Human Development Index (HDI).
According to Mathis Wackernagel (he and his professor at UBC, William Rees, introduced this concept of "ecological footprint" only about 15 years ago),
http://www.loe.org/shows/segments.htm?programID=07-P13-00045&segmentID=2
"Among all the 90 countries we looked at, we only found one country that meets both minimum criteria (a high enough HDI and a low-enough footprint), which doesn't mean that they are necessarily sustainable but they are providing long lives and high education and minimum income without using more than what is available globally worldwide per person. And this country is called Cuba."
Some of this "achievement" may be forced - due to the disruption of supplies of subsidized oil and chemical fertilizers from the Soviets, and of course due to the US embargo. But I am so glad that the Cubans turned to organic farming that is getting folks everywhere excited - to see an actual working system on such a large scale.
"Learning from Cuba's Footprint"
http://permaculture.com.au/online/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=150:learning-from-cubas-footprint&catid=27:articles&Itemid=55
(or)
http://tinyurl.com/learning-from-cuba-footprint
"Cuba's Organic Food Revolution" Flourishing (somewhat old)
www.organicconsumers.org/organic/cuba_organic_food.cfm
"Cuba's organic revolution"
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2008/apr/04/organics.food
Cuba has an external debt of about $13 billion, and if they pay close attention to their imports, I think they can easily cut out some of their food imports by reducing their beef and animal feed imports. They have a pretty decent health care system, and more people switching to a predominantly vegan diet would only make things better overall, while also helping them to break even with their import-export budget. I think Cuba must be losing because of distortion of global sugar prices. If all countries get control over their sugar plantation and pay fair wages to their labor and kick out foreign owners, I think Cuba can get better value for their sugar exports. Being a tropical island nation and with just the right population density, there is no reason for them to import food from countries like Canada and the USA - where food production is enjoying various kinds of subsidies. Maybe they'll have to diversify some more in terms of the food crops they grow and the spices too.
I think Cuba is sitting pretty on a **great** opportunity to become the first truly sustainable nation with a little bit of tweaking of policies here and there. My hope is that they can achieve this goal and serve as a model country despite the eventual normalization of trade and other relations with the USA. That's right - I said "despite" because my fear is that a careless opening up of their economy may mess up their achievements so far - some planned, and some forced - and turn Cuba into just another island country catering to stupid, mindless foreign tourists.
If you want to see how to spin exactly these points I wrote above into a negative story, check this out:
"Cuba's carbon footprint is smaller than its bootprint"
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/06/20/cuba-s-carbon-footprint-is-smaller-than-its-bootprint.aspx
(or)
http://tinyurl.com/cuba-footprint-nationalpost
"Cuba’s unique status as the only country that “enjoys” sustainability was first celebrated in the World Wildlife Fund’s The Living Planet Report 2006. The island Gulag is the only state whose “ecological footprint” (EF) and level of “human development” (according to the UN’s peculiar scale of values) are both within the tiny box where humans are to be allowed to live.
The concept of the ecological footprint was first developed in 1993 by the University of British Columbia’s William Rees and his student Mathis Wackernagel. It claims to quantify the area of land needed to support an individual within a particular nation using available technology. Based on a number of assumptions (such as, only a quarter of the earth is available to us), humans allegedly have some 1.8 hectares of planet each. If your lifestyle requires more, you are taking “more than your fair share” and contributing to “ecological overshoot.”
Such thinking is a combination of hunter-gatherer egalitarianism, neo-Malthusianism and Soviet planning. It gives rise to the bizarre statistic of the Earth-equivalent ratio, or EER, which indicates “how many earths” would be needed if everybody was to live at a particular nation’s lifestyle. Since we only have one earth, such flights are designed to shock us at the unfairness of it all, plus establish that it is physically impossible for poor people to achieve the lifestyles of the rich and greedy: If everybody was to live at the per capita standards of the U.S., we would need more than five earths!
Where Cuba scores is that if everybody lived like Cubans (not Fidel Castro, of course, or his successor as dictator, brother Raul, but the average benighted Jose or Maria), we would only need one earth. But shouldn’t we also note that Cubans have lived under a Communist dictatorship for almost fifty years? Apparently, that doesn’t matter, at least not if you look at the other axis of Cuba’s sustainable virtue. Cubans are doing well according to the UN’s Human Development Index, HDI (see graphic below), which is based on weighted rankings for longevity, literacy, years of schooling and per capita Gross Domestic Product. Naturally, democracy doesn’t get a mention, and income is underplayed, as is the fact that Cuban schooling means pure indoctrination. Nevertheless, if you want to live a long life without being threatened by obesity, Blackberry addiction or thought, Castro-ite Cuba is the place for you.
Mr. Wackernagel claims that a combination of his footprint and the HDI enables him to give a “robust measure” for sustainable development. It is defined as having an HDI of at least 0.8 and a maximum EER of 1. Too low an HDI means “underdevelopment;” a greater EER means your nation is “gobbling up too many resources.” Cuba is thus the Goldilocks of nations, the only one, according to the New Scientist magazine, which is moving in the “right direction.”
Mr. Wackernagel admits that Cuba didn’t achieve ecological virtue without a little push. According to him, Cubans were “forced into a smaller footprint because of the oil embargo.” That’s right, U.S. hegemony played its wicked part in achieving this noble end. Strangely, however, Mr. Wackernagel doesn’t mention the role of Communism in forcing Cuba into a bicycle and ox-powered economy (which has been lavishly praised by David Suzuki, who is — now here’s a surprise — on the Science and Policy Advisory Council of Mr. Wackernagel’s Global Footprint Network)."
Cuba is probably better off without American hi rollers boozing it up in Havana, they have had that before. Lots of places in the Carribean without working subsistance economies for tourists to go drink and chase prostitutes. Cuba is probably about as big as a community can be for clasical communism to work well. Good to see they are pulling it off still.