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.

July 19, 2018
Rajai R. Masri
The West’s Potential Symbiotic Contributions to Freeing a Closed Muslim Mind
Jennifer Matsui
The Blue Pill Presidency
Ryan LaMothe
The Moral and Spiritual Bankruptcy of White Evangelicals
Paul Tritschler
Negative Capability: a Force for Change?
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: ‘Social Dialogue’ Reform Frustrations
Rev. William Alberts
A Well-Kept United Methodist Church Secret
Raouf Halaby
Joseph Harsch, Robert Fisk, Franklin Lamb: Three of the Very Best
George Ochenski
He Speaks From Experience: Max Baucus on “Squandered Leadership”
Ted Rall
Right Now, It Looks Like Trump Will Win in 2020
David Swanson
The Intelligence Community Is Neither
Andrew Moss
Chaos or Community in Immigration Policy
Kim Scipes
Where Do We Go From Here? How Do We Get There?
July 18, 2018
Bruce E. Levine
Politics and Psychiatry: the Cost of the Trauma Cover-Up
Frank Stricker
The Crummy Good Economy and the New Serfdom
Linda Ford
Red Fawn Fallis and the Felony of Being Attacked by Cops
David Mattson
Entrusting Grizzlies to a Basket of Deplorables?
Stephen F. Eisenman
Want Gun Control? Arm the Left (It Worked Before)
CJ Hopkins
Trump’s Treasonous Traitor Summit or: How Liberals Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the New McCarthyism
Patrick Bond
State of the BRICS Class Struggle: Repression, Austerity and Worker Militancy
Dan Corjescu
The USA and Russia: Two Sides of the Same Criminal Corporate Coin
The Hudson Report
How Argentina Got the Biggest Loan in the History of the IMF
Kenn Orphan
You Call This Treason?
Max Parry
Ukraine’s Anti-Roma Pogroms Ignored as Russia is Blamed for Global Far Right Resurgence
Ed Meek
Acts of Resistance
July 17, 2018
Conn Hallinan
Trump & The Big Bad Bugs
Robert Hunziker
Trump Kills Science, Nature Strikes Back
John Grant
The Politics of Cruelty
Kenneth Surin
Calculated Buffoonery: Trump in the UK
Binoy Kampmark
Helsinki Theatrics: Trump Meets Putin
Patrick Bond
BRICS From Above, Seen Critically From Below
Jim Kavanagh
Fighting Fake Stories: The New Yorker, Israel and Obama
Daniel Falcone
Chomsky on the Trump NATO Ruse
W. T. Whitney
Oil Underground in Neuquén, Argentina – and a New US Military Base There
Doug Rawlings
Ken Burns’ “The Vietnam War” was Nominated for an Emmy, Does It Deserve It?
Rajan Menon
The United States of Inequality
Thomas Knapp
Have Mueller and Rosenstein Finally Gone Too Far?
Cesar Chelala
An Insatiable Salesman
Dean Baker
Truth, Trump and the Washington Post
Mel Gurtov
Human Rights Trumped
Binoy Kampmark
Putin’s Football Gambit: How the World Cup Paid Off
July 16, 2018
Sheldon Richman
Trump Turns to Gaza as Middle East Deal of the Century Collapses
Charles Pierson
Kirstjen Nielsen Just Wants to Protect You
Brett Wilkins
The Lydda Death March and the Israeli State of Denial
Patrick Cockburn
Trump Knows That the US Can Exercise More Power in a UK Weakened by Brexit
Robert Fisk
The Fisherman of Sarajevo Told Tales Past Wars and Wars to Come
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail