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.

Weekend Edition
June 15, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Dan Kovalik
The US & Nicaragua: a Case Study in Historical Amnesia & Blindness
Jeremy Kuzmarov
Yellow Journalism and the New Cold War
Charles Pierson
The Day the US Became an Empire
Jonathan Cook
How the Corporate Media Enslave Us to a World of Illusions
Ajamu Baraka
North Korea Issue is Not De-nuclearization But De-Colonization
Andrew Levine
Midterms Coming: Antinomy Ahead
Louisa Willcox
New Information on 2017 Yellowstone Grizzly Bear Deaths Should Nix Trophy Hunting in Core Habitat
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Singapore Fling
Ron Jacobs
What’s So Bad About Peace, Man?
Robert Hunziker
State of the Climate – It’s Alarming!
L. Michael Hager
Acts and Omissions: The NYT’s Flawed Coverage of the Gaza Protest
Dave Lindorff
However Tenuous and Whatever His Motives, Trump’s Summit Agreement with Kim is Praiseworthy
Robert Fantina
Palestine, the United Nations and the Right of Return
Brian Cloughley
Sabre-Rattling With Russia
Chris Wright
To Be or Not to Be? That’s the Question
David Rosen
Why Do Establishment Feminists Hate Sex Workers?
Victor Grossman
A Key Congress in Leipzig
John Eskow
“It’s All Kinderspiel!” Trump, MSNBC, and the 24/7 Horseshit Roundelay
Paul Buhle
The Russians are Coming!
Joyce Nelson
The NED’s Useful Idiots
Lindsay Koshgarian
Trump’s Giving Diplomacy a Chance. His Critics Should, Too
Louis Proyect
American Nativism: From the Chinese Exclusion Act to Trump
Stan Malinowitz
On the Elections in Colombia
Camilo Mejia
Open Letter to Amnesty International on Nicaragua From a Former Amnesty International Prisoner of Conscience
David Krieger
An Assessment of the Trump-Kim Singapore Summit
Jonah Raskin
Cannabis in California: a Report From Sacramento
Josh Hoxie
Just How Rich Are the Ultra Rich?
CJ Hopkins
Awaiting the Putin-Nazi Apocalypse
Mona Younis
We’re the Wealthiest Country on Earth, But Over 40 Percent of Us Live in or Near Poverty
Dean Baker
Not Everything Trump Says on Trade is Wrong
James Munson
Trading Places: the Other 1% and the .001% Who Won’t Save Them
Rivera Sun
Stop Crony Capitalism: Protect the Net!
Franklin Lamb
Hezbollah Claims a 20-Seat Parliamentary Majority
William Loren Katz
Oliver Law, the Lincoln Brigade’s Black Commander
Ralph Nader
The Constitution and the Lawmen are Coming for Trump—He Laughs!
Tom Clifford
Mexico ’70 Sets the Goal for World Cup 
David Swanson
What Else Canadians Should Be Sorry For — Besides Burning the White House
Andy Piascik
Jane LaTour: 50+ Years in the Labor Movement (And Still Going)
Jill Richardson
Pruitt’s Abuse of Our Environment is Far More Dangerous Than His Abuse of Taxpayer Money
Ebony Slaughter-Johnson
Pardons Aren’t Policy
Daniel Warner
To Russia With Love? In Praise of Trump the Includer
Raouf Halaby
Talking Heads A’Talking Nonsense
Julian Vigo
On the Smearing of Jordan Peterson: On Dialogue and Listening
Larry Everest
A Week of Rachel Maddow…or How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love Ronald Reagan
David Yearsley
Hereditary: Where Things are Not What They Sound Like
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail