Point/Counterpoint: The Road to Free Cuba is Paved with Good Intentions…
by Eric Driggs on September 19, 2007 in Opinion
I spent much of my summer in Miami, locked in a strange dance of furious rumor and tense waiting. For a Cuban-American, rumors about Fidel Castro’s health are nothing new, but the most recent ones have been noticed far beyond Miami. Democratic presidential candidates discussed American policy options to hasten a free Cuba: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton favors maintaining current policy until Castro’s demise changes the landscape; Senator Barack Obama proposed new measures, which, while well-intentioned, could hamper efforts towards a freer society in Cuba.
The core of Barack Obama’s strategy to encourage change in Cuba is “to help the Cuban people become less dependent on the Castro regime in fundamental ways.” This is an important – although extremely difficult – goal to accomplish via foreign policy in a country that has spent the last 48 years consolidating its absolute control over its citizens. The Cuban Penal Code, for example, empowers the government to imprison citizens deemed a “criminal risk” for up to four years – even before a crime is committed. And in plain violation of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Cuban citizens are not allowed to freely leave their own country.
It is in this environment of complete control that Senator Obama proposes unlimited remittances to decrease dependence on the Cuban government. Unfortunately, giving Cubans more disposable income would in fact likely increase their reliance on the Cuban state. Many basic items are only within reach of those Cubans with access to dollars. All of the stores that sell these items to Cubans are owned and operated by none other than the Cuban government. One does not liberate sharecroppers by giving them more money to spend at the landowner’s general store. Spending more may make life more comfortable, but it will do little to hasten independence.
Supporters of this policy contend that the unrestricted flow of money helps citizens amass wealth, and mobilize to defend the interests this wealth creates. This may work in more open economies, but this is Cuba: one must have satisfactory revolutionary credentials to be put on a list to purchase a car. Even post-hurricane construction materials are meted out not by need, but by affiliation with the Cuban Communist Party.
I do not oppose remittances, or those who rightfully and understandably send them to family members, but throwing unlimited amounts of money will not embolden an opposition that has been decimated by government infiltration and arrests, or a population raised in a system that breeds mistrust and teaches that resistance is far more costly than patience. The only answer to the sharecropper’s plight, and for those under the thumb of the engineered Cuban economy, is the collapse of the system.
Similarly, if the goal is freedom, certain limited restrictions on travel by Cuban-Americans may actually be more beneficial than unrestricted visitation. The Cuban government has been known to require those who stay with their families to pay for hotel rooms, whether they stay there or not, as clear a sign as any that the funds from tourism, and not right of travel, are the Cuban government’s true motivation. The tourism industry, Cuba’s largest revenue source, is intimately tied with the military: major Cuban hotel chains, airlines, and even the Ministry of Tourism are controlled by military personnel. Supplying much-needed resources to the institution sworn to combat democratic reform is probably not the wisest move.
I agree with Senator Obama’s belief that interpersonal contact is crucial to the spreading of democratic values. However, offering unrestricted, unconditional travel would allow the Cuban government to maximize the benefit by levying higher fees and refusing entrance to suspected democratic supporters. Freedom in the hands of repressive regimes is seldom a catalyst for social change.
Senator Obama also claims that U.S. policy had a large part in creating the “Cuban Spring,” a period of relaxation in the control mechanisms on the island in which private enterprise opened slightly and opposition movements formed. But this had far more to do with the collapse of the Soviet Union and dire living conditions in the 1990s than anything done in Washington. This mindset is nothing new – overestimating U.S. influence while underestimating an entrenched and intelligent opponent is a common American mistake. It has typified U.S.-Cuba policy and reaped unfortunate consequences in other regions, most recently Iraq. Washington policy and/or exile assistance should play a supporting role. Change on the island will and must be caused primarily by internal forces.
Cuba wields powerful influence in Latin America, and a successful democratic transition would have repercussions far beyond the island. I’m heartened that Senator Obama acknowledges this, and even more so that a free Cuba is back in the debate. I merely hope the policies that win the day are the ones that ensure the next dance I have in Miami is not one forced by stagnant rumor, but one inspired by freedom regained.
Comments
One Response to “Point/Counterpoint: The Road to Free Cuba is Paved with Good Intentions…”
Got something to say?
Right on. I agree 100 percent I wish most people spoke with the clarity that you have in this article thank you.
Dennis, 29 - grandson of a Cuban Political Prisoner.