Skip to content

Posts tagged ‘Raúl Castro’

Cuba and the Price of Principled Stands

By Taylor Marvin

President Obama speaking with freed Cuban prisoner Alan Gross. Official White House photo by Pete Souza

President Obama speaking with freed Cuban prisoner Alan Gross. Official White House photo by Pete Souza.

One of the most enduring realities of US-Latin American relations appears set to finally end. On Wednesday, President Obama made the surprise announcement that the United States and Cuba had negotiated the reestablishment of their diplomatic relationship, following mutual prisoner releases. While many questions remain — notably whether a Republican-controlled Congress is prepared to end the American embargo on the island or would instead block the appointment of an ambassador to Havana — Cuba’s extreme isolation from the United States is drawing to a close.

Many conservative commentators have, unsurprisingly, questioned this policy change. While Tom Nichols writes that there is a conservative case for accepting normalized relations with Havana, the National Review Online’s Daniel Foster isn’t convinced (via Joshua Foust). Citing pieces by political scientist Dan Drezner and Charles Lane, Foster worries that normalizing American relations with Cuba will strengthen, not weaken, the Castro regime. If an eventual ending of the embargo is unlikely to hasten the regime’s demise, Foster asks, why should the US abandon “a half-century-old, principled stand, and reward human-rights-abusing evildoers, for that little upside?” Foster concludes that America’s dealings with other human rights violators — notably Saudi Arabia — strengthens the argument for preserving the Cuban embargo:

“You strike an alliance with a Saudi regime with a less-than-stellar human rights record because it’s surrounded by strategic threats in a region vital to U.S. interests. Cuba, by contrast, is parked in the middle of an American lake. We’ve had the run of the hemisphere for 120 years. If ever there’s a place where realist considerations leave room for taking a stand for liberty — even a largely symbolic one — it’s there.”

While remittance-spurred economic growth directly affects the lives of over 11 million Cubans and Obama’s move roused the passions of many Cuban-Americans who are either for or against the prospect of normalized relations, as Drezner notes ultimately the chances that increased ties will spur liberalization in Cuba are slim.

But it is wrong to suggest that the consequences of isolating Cuba can be neatly cordoned off from the rest of American foreign policy simply because Latin America is a stable region. First, as Drezner and others again note, isolating Cuba is an overwhelmingly unpopular policy among other states. Not only does normalizing relations with Cuba demonstrate to other American adversaries like Iran that US negotiating carrots are real, but maintaining the embargo furthers the general perception of the United States’ arrogance and that it does not respect the wishes of the international community.

Secondly, and more practically, Foster is wrong to dismiss a principled stand on Cuba — continuing the embargo — as costless. The Caribbean may remain “an American lake,” but Washington’s influence in Latin America today is likely the most modest it has been in a century, President Obama’s “moment of renewed leadership in the Americas” comment aside. China’s economic role in the region is growing, and while the ultimate influence of the BRICS emerging markets bloc — Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa — remains uncertain, large Latin American countries increasingly envision a future where economic growth and a multipolar will allow them to assert their interests outside of the United States’ hemispheric shadow. In particular, Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff and her ruling Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers’ Party) have repeatedly sought to demonstrate Brazil’s displeasure with US global leadership; Rousseff won reelection in October after narrowly defeating an opposition candidate who favored closer ties with the United States.

The United States’ Cuba policy is closely linked to its other relationships in Latin America. Despite its abuses the Castro regime is popular among many of the region’s heads of state, and this popularity cannot simply be hand-waved away. It isn’t only the more famously left-wing governments of chavista Venezuela and Evo Morales’ Bolivia that support the Castros. In Argentina, the leftist government of Cristina Kirchner — friendly with Cuba — was recently embarrassed by the revelation that the murderous right-wing Argentine military junta cooperated with communist Cuba; “for a dictator there’s nothing better than another dictator,” in El País’ translated words. And Brazil, which has famously — and controversiallyimported Cuban doctors, saw the prospect of normalizing US relations with Cuba as ending a Cold War anachronism, an impression echoed by Chilean Foreign Minister Heraldo Muñoz. Brazil also called for the prompt lifting of the embargo on Cuba.

Of course, America’s standing in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Venezuela will not improve much even if the embargo ends tomorrow. And “vulture funds” and Kirchner’s posturing over the Falklands Islands are far greater barriers to a solid US-Argentina relationship than Cuba policy. Similarly, America’s relations with Brazil were strained even before the revelations that the NSA had spied on President Rousseff’s personal communications.

But ties between the Washington and Brasília are an important, and neglected, relationship. Brazil is a country of two hundred million people, is already a major global market, and despite recent setbacks will likely be more economically and diplomatically consequential in the future than it is today. Even if the benefits of normalizing relations with Cuba are low, the half-century isolation of the island has done real damage to the US’ image in an important region. Simply dismissing Cuba — and Washington’s broader relationship with Latin America — as “symbolic” questions weakens the United States influence and furthers its reputation for arrogance, for little gain.

Update: The Christian Science Monitor has a report examining how relations with Latin America contributed to Obama’s policy shift.

How Will Castro be Remembered?

By Taylor Marvin

On Twitter, Sarah Alaoui wonders how the world will view the death of another aged revolutionary:

To be sure, there are enormous differenced between Fidel Castro and Nelson Mandela. Aside from a few mixed views of his legacy in the American press and elsewhere, Mandela was a globally respected democratic icon; Castro is an autocrat under whose repressive rule Cuba stagnated. However, Mandela’s death does suggest the question of how Fidel Castro’s will be received, especially given Obama’s handshake with Raúl Castro at the funeral (which was promptly decried by American conservatives).

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Photo by Alberto Korda, via Wikimedia.

Che Guevara and Fidel Castro. Photo by Alberto Korda, via Wikimedia.

Castro’s legacy is both boosted and diminished by his longevity. After the dissolution of the USSR it became apparent that both it and Castro’s brands of communism were dead ends, and enormously damaging ones. During the Cold War Castro’s dictatorship compared favorably to many of Latin America’s rightest regimes, like the Pinochet dictatorship in Chile, Stroessner regime in Paraguay, or Argentine National Reorganization Process. Similarly, Castro benefitted from the legitimizing enmity of the United States; while the region’s rightist regimes overstated the domestic left-wing opposition they defined themselves by combating, Castro faced a very powerful foe across the Florida Straits. Had Castro died in the 1980s, it is likely that these factors would have softened memories of his regime. This is no longer true.

However, Castro’s memory could also gain from his long life. More than twenty years after the end of the Cold War the popular association of Castro with the USSR and global communism has lessened, and his connection with a new wave of far more positively-received South American leftists like Bolivia’s Evo Morales and Ecuador’s Rafael Correa  has arguably improved his image. While Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez and his successor Nicolás Maduro most closely associated themselves with the Castros’ Cuba, other countries with center-left governments pursued friendly relations with Cuba, with Dilma Rousseff’s Brazil recently accepting a mission of Cuban doctors. While Hugo Chávez’s talk of a resurgent and unified Latin American left was always overblown, Castro’s stature has benefitted from his position as the venerable and symbolic vanguard of the so-called movement — even if Castro’s figurehead position was as much due to his practical irrelevance than anything else.

Fidel Castro will be mourned in Latin America and elsewhere, both by those who admire his tenacious opposition to the United States and role as a symbol of left-wing resistance and by center-left governments seeking to co-opt the more popular aspects of his legacy. But Castro is unlikely to be widely rememberd as an icon. While the punishing US trade embargo allows for (somewhat justified) blame-shifting, under the Castro regime Cuba’s economy has stagnated while many of its neighbors’ have grown. Not only orphaned by the dissolution of the USSR, Cuba was also left behind by the wave of democratization that swept through the region in the 1980s. While Castro framed himself in opposition to the United States and its rightest clients throughout Latin America, former right-wing dictatorships like Argentina, Chile, the Dominican Republic, and Brazil  have democratized while Cuba has not. It is difficult to spin Castro as an icon of revolution and resistance when even the regional countries that associate themselves with his regime are now, unlike Cuba, democracies. Mandela’s life and death is associated with a beginning, while Castro’s will mark and end of an era.