FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

The Context of Cuba’s Crisis

On December 18, 2010 Cuban President Ra?l Castro warned Cubans: the nation faced a crisis. The disastrous condition of Cuba’s economy no longer allowed the state any maneuvering room to walk the dangerous “precipice” of inefficiency, low productivity and corruption. Without reforms, Cuba would sink ? and with it the effort of every generation seeking a free Cuba since the first native revolt against Spanish colonial rule.

Cubans understood that since 1959 the Revolution with all its faults had safeguarded the nation’s independence ? national sovereignty. From 1492 (Columbus’ landing) through December 1958, foreign powers had decided the fate of Cubans.

By the early 19th century a “Cuban” had emerged — not a Spaniard on a faraway island or an enslaved African ? but a hybrid product of three centuries of colonialism who sought self-determination — like the American colonial population in 1776.

When Batista and his generals fled, a US-backed coup effort  failed. The rebels then established the modern Cuban nation, which quickly became a real and until then almost unimaginable challenge to US domination.

 This unstated truth, understood in Havana and Washington, put the countries on a collision course. Washington refused to cede control; the Revolution rejected US authority. Since 1898, the US had treated Cuba as an appendage of its economy. US companies owned Cuba’s largest sugar mills, its best land, the phone and utility companies, the mines and much else. Cuban government, like those of its neighbors in the “US backyard,” had automatically obeyed Washington’s policy dictates.

Revolutionary defiance, reducing rent by 50% and passing an agrarian reform law, without asking permission, got attention in Washington. The words “dictatorship” and “communist” began appearing routinely in government-spun news reports.

The island of 6 million people with sugar as cash crop lacked both material and human resources needed to secure real independence. Washington understood this.  Some US officials, wrote E. W. Kenworthy, “believe the Castro Government must go ‘through the wringer’ before it will see the need for United States aid and agree to the stabilization measures which will make it possible to get aid.” (“Cuba’s Problems Pose Tests for US Policy,” NY Times, April 26, 1959)

When Cuban leaders either ignored or ridiculed Washington’s warnings, President Eisenhower, in March 1960, authorized a CIA covert operation to overthrow the Cuban government ? ending in the April 1961 Bay of Pigs “fiasco.” In October 1960, however, in response to Cuba’s nationalization of US property ? an escalating confrontation of Cuba acting and Washington punishing ?Ike imposed an embargo on Cuba.

But even in April 1960 the State Department had issued its punishment guideline:“[E]very possible means should be undertaken promptly to weaken the economic life of Cuba. … a line of action which, while as adroit and inconspicuous as possible, makes the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hunger, desperation and overthrow of government.” (Office of the Historian, Bureau Of Public Affairs, US Department Of State; John P. Glennon, et al., eds., Foreign Relations of the United States, 1958?1960, Volume VI, Cuba (Washington D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1991), 885.)

Havana responded by doing the unthinkable: In 1961, Cuba allied itself with the Soviet bloc. To secure independence, Cuban leaders became reliant on Soviet assistance.

In 1991, the Soviet demise left Cubans ? finally — with total political “independence” and no outside material support with which to maintain their nation. The embargo took on heightened dimensions.

In 1959, the revolutionaries in their 20s and 30s did not predict the ferocity of US punishment, nor grasp that their sin of disobedience reached beyond the dictates of US power, and to the core of a global system. Washington was the informal world capitol of capital.

In that role, Washington relentlessly attacked Cuba ? even after it ceased to exercise Hemispheric hegemony. The control mantra still seeps through the walls of national security offices and by osmosis enters the bureaucrats’ brains: “We permit no insubordination.” Cubans had to pay for the resistance of their leaders. Washington’s lesson: Resistance is futile.

On December 18, 2010 Ra?l Castro informed Cubans of the need for drastic reforms. Since the US embargo would remain, Cuba needed to change. To survive as a nation, its economy and labor force must become efficient and productive.

The revolution had trained, educated and made healthy the Cuban population. But, Ra?l admitted, the state no longer can meet some basic needs Cubans had assumed as human rights (entitlements). One million people, he announced, would lose jobs; social programs reduced or eliminated.

Cubans’ non-productivity — lax work ethics, bureaucratic inefficiency, and absence of initiative ? had become compounded by corruption. The US embargo leads to shortages and encourages bureaucratic misdeeds. A bureaucrat enhances his income by “solving” the very “obstacles” the same bureaucrat helped create.

After 51+ years, Washington’s punishment appeared to force Cuba to accepting a shock doctrine, but without all the regressive social costs most Third World countries have paid. In 1980, a Jamaican remarked after Prime Minister Manley submitted to the International Monetary Fund’s punishing austerity measures: “We’ve been IMF’d.”

The Cuban revolution again enters unscripted territory. The bureaucracy with its adjacent inefficiencies, and the persistence of corruption, will not disappear. Reformers, however, count on deep resources ? a public with social consciousness absorbed through decades of education and experience.

World geo-political changes, however, offer Cuban leaders  some advantages: China, Brazil and some European Union states have become potential counters to US hardliners. With breathing space Cubans might still avoid the worst consequences of Washington’s obsolete 50 year old shock doctrine.

Saul Landau’s new film WILL THE REAL TERRORIST PLEASE STAND UP premiered in December at the Havana Film Festival. Counterpunch published his BUSH AND BOTOX WORLD.

Nelson P Valdés is the Director of the Cuba-L Project.

 

 

More articles by:

Nelson P. Valdes is Professor Emeritus at the University of New Mexico.

April 19, 2018
Ramzy Baroud
Media Cover-up: Shielding Israel is a Matter of Policy
Vijay Prashad
Undermining Brazilian Democracy: the Curious Saga of Lula
Steve Fraser
Class Dismissed: Class Conflict in Red State America
John W. Whitehead
Crimes of a Monster: Your Tax Dollars at Work
Kenn Orphan
Whistling Past the Graveyard
Karl Grossman TJ Coles
Opening Pandora’s Box: Karl Grossman on Trump and the Weaponization of Space
Colin Todhunter
Behind Theresa May’s ‘Humanitarian Hysterics’: The Ideology of Empire and Conquest
Jesse Jackson
Syrian Strikes is One More step Toward a Lawless Presidency
Michael Welton
Confronting Militarism is Early Twentieth Century Canada: the Woman’s International League for Peace and Freedom
Alycee Lane
On David S. Buckel and Setting Ourselves on Fire
Jennifer Matsui
Our Overlords Reveal Their Top ‘To Do’s: Are YOU Next On Their Kill List?
George Ochenski
Jive Talkin’: On the Campaign Trail With Montana Republicans
Kary Love
Is It Time for A Nice, “Little” Nuclear War?
April 18, 2018
Alan Nasser
Could Student Loans Lead to Debt Prison? The Handwriting on the Wall
Susan Roberts
Uses for the Poor
Alvaro Huerta
I Am Not Your “Wetback”
Jonah Raskin
Napa County, California: the Clash of Oligarchy & Democracy
Robert Hunziker
America’s Dystopian Future
Geoffrey McDonald
“America First!” as Economic War
Jonathan Cook
Robert Fisk’s Douma Report Rips Away Excuses for Air Strike on Syria
Jeff Berg
WW III This Ain’t
Binoy Kampmark
Macron’s Syria Game
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
Katie Fite
Chaos in Urban Canyons – Air Force Efforts to Carve a Civilian Population War Game Range across Southern Idaho
Robby Sherwin
Facebook: This Is Where I Leave You
April 17, 2018
Paul Street
Eight Takeaways on Boss Tweet’s Latest Syrian Missile Spasm
Robert Fisk
The Search for the Truth in Douma
Eric Mann
The Historic 1968 Struggle Against Columbia University
Roy Eidelson
The 1%’s Mind Games: Psychology Gone Bad
John Steppling
The Sleep of Civilization
Patrick Cockburn
Syria Bombing Reveals Weakness of Theresa May
Dave Lindorff
No Indication in the US That the Country is at War Again
W. T. Whitney
Colombia and Cuba:  a Tale of Two Countries
Dean Baker
Why Isn’t the Median Wage for Black Workers Rising?
Linn Washington Jr.
Philadelphia’s Top Cop Defends Indefensible Prejudice in Starbucks Arrest Incident
C. L. Cook
Man in the Glass
Kary Love
“The Mob Boss Orders a Hit and a Pardon”
Lawrence Wittner
Which Nations Are the Happiest―and Why
Dr. Hakim
Where on Earth is the Just Economy that Works for All, Including Afghan Children?
April 16, 2018
Dave Lindorff
President Trump’s War Crime is Worse than the One He Accuses Assad of
Ron Jacobs
War is Just F**kin’ Wrong
John Laforge
Nuclear Keeps on Polluting, Long After Shutdown
Norman Solomon
Missile Attack on Syria Is a Salute to “Russiagate” Enthusiasts, Whether They Like It or Not
Uri Avnery
Eyeless in Gaza   
Barbara Nimri Aziz
Iraq Then, Syria Now
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail