Wishful thinking on Cuba

Interesting column in Canada’s Globe and Mail. It contains some truths and some wishful thinking. Time to dust off the old fisking machine.

…although there has been a softening of positions on both sides, an impasse appears probable, with Mr. Obama requiring internal political changes that Mr. Castro’s government will not accept, and that successor governments may not accept for some time. Basic political liberalization within Cuba would require not just the release of political prisoners, but more fundamentally, an abolition of the monopoly role of the Communist Party of Cuba. The party’s authority is enshrined in Article 5 of the Cuban constitution, which can be amended only with a two-thirds majority in the National Assembly, which in turn is controlled by the party, which in turn has been controlled by the president. Will the party willingly terminate its own political monopoly? It seems unlikely.

The author accurately describes the nature of dictatorship. Its only objective is its own perpetuation. But this isn’t a problem that will be solved by passing a law in Cuba’s “National Assembly”. That insinuation underplays the real situation and makes sound like such a thing is remotely possible even if “unlikely”.

However, continuing impasse will hurt both countries. Cuba would benefit greatly from normalization. It would acquire a major export market, although its exports are currently limited by production constraints. It would obtain some lower-cost imports, although Cuba already imports large quantities of foodstuffs from the United States – $650-million (U.S.) worth in 2008.

The idea that the U.S. suffers from the “impasse” is a canard. What does Cuba have to offer the U.S. that we can’t obtain elsewhere? As I’ve mentioned time and again, investing in Cuba would be a risky proposition for any business attempting it.

There would be a huge increase in American travel to Cuba: pent-up demand for “curiosity tourism” as well as convention, medical, family, cruise-ship and “snow-bird” visits. The end of the external threat would permit further downsizing of Havana’s armed forces and the shifting of resources to more productive uses. There would be increased inflows of foreign investment, technology, finance and entrepreneurship.

The idea that Cuba would have a “peace dividend” because an “external threat” is diminished is ludicrous. Cuba is a country that is governed by a group of generals. It’s an old fashioned military dictatorship. Besides the U.S. has never shown an interest in invading Cuba since the Bay of Pigs. The castro brothers on the other hand have had continued interest in spawning guerrilla wars throughout Latin America and Africa. As far as “inflows of foreign investment, technology, finance and entrepreneurship” go, those inflows will only to the degree and in the manner that the castro brothers decree. That’s what many of these so-called experts don’t want to recognize. We can change our policies toward the regime but the regime won’t change its policies toward the Cuban people.

The return of Guantanamo Bay could be a major benefit. And one hopes that such changes would result in political democracy and human rights as articulated in the UN’s Universal Declaration, plus a strong economy and improved living standards.

First of all the return of the Guantanamo base is not even in the discussion at this point. All the talk about Guantanamo has been about closing the prison where we house battlefield detainees from Iraq and Afghanistan, period. Besides I don’t see the connection with the Universal Declaration of human rights. Cuba is not only a signatory but helped draft the document, yet the regime governing Cuba today routinely violates it. I don’t understand how giving the base back results in the observation of human rights by the castro brothers.

For the United States, normalization would end a 50-year policy failure. Its approach to Cuba has damaged its relations with Latin America and the world, isolating not Havana but Washington. The United States would gain from normal economic interaction. Southern Florida would become a major economic hub for U.S.-Cuban economic activity. Most important, American and Cuban citizens and families could co-exist normally.

That last part is doozy. Cuban families would co-exist normally, except for the fact that the side of the family that lives in Cuba continues to be oppressed by a totalitarian dictatorship. Kind of like the families of those in prison co-exist “normally” with their loved ones behind bars.

It appears that Mr. Obama’s administration will end the restrictions on Cuban-American travel and remittances. The process might end there, but Cuba could respond constructively, perhaps by ending the 10-per-cent tax on U.S. dollar remittances and releasing all political prisoners.

And why would the regime do that? The castro brothers head a criminal enterprise and that 10% is their racket. And why would they release political opponents from prison if they get what they want from the U.S. without having to do it in exchange? Is it possible that the author thinks the castro brothers will suddenly become charitable?

Again, Cuba might terminate the process at this point with no authentic democratization.

No shit, sherlock. The best indicator of future performance is past performance. And based on that I’d say the likelihood of regime refusing to budge is high. Then all of these good will gestures that the author suggests would have been for naught.

Cuba’s siege mentality will dissipate when the United States stops waving its big stick, and when there is no longer a credible external threat – the pretext for outlawing basic freedoms and democracy will simply disappear. The Communist Party will undoubtedly try to maintain its monopoly, but the groups favouring the political status quo will lose support both internationally and domestically. In time, that status quo will be unsustainable. It will be a difficult process, but Cuba will find its way to democracy.

I at least give this guy credit for articulating what other embargo opponents refuse to articulate which is the vision of exactly how removing the embargo will lead to the end of dictatorship. And now you see why they refuse to articulate it. When exposed to the light of day, the argument is WEAK. As I’ve stated before, even without the embargo the regime will continue to rail against the U.S., there will always be a reason to. And the those groups who favor the status quo will continue to have international support because anti-Americanism isn’t going anywhere. Within Cuba, the regime will still have the power to repress its political opponents who will find themselves without any American moral support for the first time. What this guy is suggesting is to give away the house in the hope that the dictatorship will stop acting like a dictatorship. Well I’m not that naive. I believe that there are people who you cannot reason with. They only understand pressure. Unfortunately Cuba is ruled by such people.