Dialogue and Dictatorships: Cuba and the United States
Ferrer’s words make a lot of sense: the opposition needs more than ever to unite, to strengthen itself, to make itself heard.
By Yunior Garcia Aguilera (14ymedio)
HAVANA TIMES – In recent days, the statements made by José Daniel Ferrer, the leader of the Patriotic Union of Cuba, have caused a great stir. José Daniel has earned his leadership by demonstrating uncommon courage, sacrificing several years of his life locked in Cuban dungeons, silenced, far from his family and receiving on his own body a violence that not many of us have been willing to suffer. Therefore, when someone like him expresses his opinions, of course one can disagree, but always with respect. Any patriot with a minimum of ethics would avoid falling into disqualifications, insults or questioning of his commitment to freedom and democracy.
His statements have been widely reported and debated. He mentioned some phrases that are considered cursed by a part of the opposition. For years, many activists and social media personalities have been euphorically repeating the slogan “there is no dialogue with dictatorships.” This dogma has been repeated so much that some even claim that it is one of the ten biblical commandments written in stone. Including those who insist that anyone who violates this sacred rule is part of an alleged “fraudulent change” organized behind the scenes by the regime itself in its secret offices.
The truth is that Castroism has not given any sign of going in that direction, quite the opposite. Its clinging to power is more intense than that song by Juan Gabriel. Its foolishness is more irrational and anti-dialectical than the overused theme of Silvio Rodriguez. They have not even been able to mutate towards the Chinese, or the Vietnamese, or the Russian model.
The experts who tried to help them in those adventures surely ended up receiving treatments for anxiety and frustration. How is a regime that did not even succeed in the Ordering Task reforms going to successfully plan the supposed fraudulent change that is so theorized about? I do not underestimate them. They have more than enough capacity to repress, but they do not possess even a tiny grain of talent for change, not even in a fraudulent way. They are “continuity.”
But let’s talk about the demonized dialogue. First of all, the dictatorship has never been willing to sit down with the opposition, except in its interrogation rooms. Its traditional position has been to not recognize us. They were not even able to move forward in that attempt at dialogue after November 27, 2020.
They broke it off as soon as they had the first chance. Now, it is one thing to make a pact with a regime to ensure its prolongation, bending to its interests, and quite another thing to recognize the importance of countless historical dialogues and negotiations that put an end to various dictatorships. It is enough to study the Spanish Transition, the 1988 plebiscite in Chile or the end of apartheid in South Africa. None of these processes was a bed of roses, but they saved their citizens a lot of blood and avoided the indefinite delay of those regimes.
And for those for whom these examples do not serve, we also have Eastern Europe, the fall of the Berlin Wall or the disintegration of the Soviet bloc, all accompanied by negotiations between different political sectors. In Poland, the Solidarity movement led talks with the communist government, which allowed a gradual transition to democracy. In short, dialogues have indeed brought down dictatorships, especially when they were accompanied by social pressure, international support and intelligent, consolidated and strong leadership.
It is obvious that if one does not have a suitcase there is absolutely nothing to negotiate, because it would be a waste of time. An opposition that is unable to engage in dialogue even with itself, that does not have the power to call for mobilization and organization of citizens for a protest or a strike, that is incapable of establishing firm alliances and consensus between the different groups in exile and within the island, or that is ignored by international powers and organizations, has nothing to negotiate. In that case there is no other option than to scream into the void, without any plan, waiting patiently for the pressure cooker to explode by itself. But those who hold out hope for violent chaos as a deus ex machina seem to forget who the person sitting in the Oval Office is.
The current president of the United States is a born negotiator. And he does talk with dictatorships, even the worst ones. In his previous term, we saw him shake hands with the most pusillanimous dictator on the planet, Kim Jong-un. And we all watched with amazement the recent laughter of the Chavistas in the photo between Maduro and Trump’s envoy. You don’t have to pay for an online course in political analysis to know that the strategy of the tycoon-president is very simple: generate a lot of noise and apply maximum pressure to force his opponent to sit at the negotiating table.
I don’t think the Trump administration would look kindly on a violent collapse 90 miles from its borders, with the ensuing immigration chaos. Someone like him would prefer his surroundings to remain as quiet as possible, without creating risks near his walls. And his discourse has been clear from the beginning: he prefers tough guys who are capable of maintaining order in their respective houses, even if they are not very democratic.
That is why Ferrer’s words make a lot of sense. The opposition needs more than ever to unite, to strengthen itself, to make itself heard and to consider all the paths that imply less suffering for a people who have already suffered enough. State Security’s plan since they decided to release him is very obvious: to discredit his figure, to undermine his leadership, to divide even more. They have done it before and it has worked out well. They count on our ignorance and our egos. If Jose Daniel has had anything, it is time to think carefully, away from the noise of social networks and the fierce competition to see who claims to be more radical or to shout the loudest. For him, my deep respect, although we surely do not agree on everything, as it should be.
And for those who insult him, just one thought: the worst thing would not be that, when Trump sits down to negotiate, we are not even remotely prepared, with a good bag of options. The worst thing would be… that we are not even invited.
Translated by Translating Cuba.