HAVANA TIMES — Historically, the Cuban leadership has fallen back on the nationalist argument that invokes the imperialist blockade, acts of foreign aggression and the support the United States offers many government opponents on the island to portray itself as a kind of David, combatting a gigantic Goliath, and to maintain a “besieged city” policy towards a hyperbolized external enemy.
The Machiavellian aim of this has been to maintain internal cohesion and obedience and to justify the permanent harassment of dissidents and all those who do not agree with official policy, no matter whether such disagreements stem from anti-capitalist and anti-imperialist positions like those of the broad-encompassing socialist and democratic Left.
Thus, the United States’ interventionist policies of aggression, threats, blockade and isolation vis-a-vis the Cuban government, designed to impel “a transition towards democracy”, have in fact always helped Cuba’s leadership strengthen its centralized power and stood in the way of democratization on the island. They have also helped improve the Cuban government’s regional standing and isolate the US government internationally.
The recent Summit of the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States attests to this. While the Cuban State offered “signs” of pluralism and regional tolerance, the United States showed itself lacking in both, incurring the isolation that Washington has sought to impose on Havana.
While the leadership’s efforts were being acknowledged by all other governments in the continent (with the exception of the United States and Canada, which were not present at the summit), many members of the opposition and dissidents were being jailed and suffering different forms of repression for attempting to hold a forum to discuss democracy and human rights issues in the country.
Politologist Manuel Cuesta Morua, the social-democratic leader of the Grupo Arco Progresista (“Progressive Arc Group”) and one of the organizers of that forum, was detained in order to keep him from participating in the gathering, and released after being accused of “divulging false news to the detriment of world peace.” The authorities argued that a number of articles and pieces the government opponent and academic had written on Cuba’s racial problematic “distorted Cuban reality and the work of the revolution towards racial equality.”
Criminal charges could well be brought against several million Cubans who have a different conception of that reality and that work “for distorting Cuban reality and the work of the revolution,” as the Cuban government understands these. Some are speaking of an imminent “black spring” on the island.
In short, the United States’ policy towards Cuba has proven counterproductive – and this is something many international analysts with different political stances agree on. It is more detrimental to the interests of the US government than those of the Cuban leadership and hurts the people of Cuba most of all, as it has been used, internally, to justify repression and the economic absurdities of the government, a government which has more or less successfully presented the contradiction between the two countries as the chief cause of Cuba’s problems.
In fact, the US blockade (or “embargo”, if you wish) has been the Cuban government’s most important ally in its repression of dissents, divergent forms of thought and in its efforts to prevent the democratization of Cuban society.
I am by no means saying that imperialism is solely responsible for Cuba’s tragedy. Elsewhere, I have written and demonstrated that the one thing to blame for the catastrophe is the neo-Stalinist economic, political and social State monopoly capitalist system that has been imposed on Cuba in the name of “socialism.”
Individually, the “revolutionary” leaders, who live like millionaires, untouched by the poverty in which the vast majority of Cubans subsist, have not in the least been affected by the blockade, whose burden – invariably – is laid entirely on the shoulders of the Cuban people.
Since US policy towards Cuba is aimed at demonstrating the unviability of “socialism” – a “socialism” that has never existed – the United States has cared little about the concrete results this policy has on the Cuban people. This is why I refer to this policy as “criminal.”
Because of its own policies, the United States has forfeited the possibility of directly contributing to eventual democratic changes on the island and limited its ability to participate in Cuba’s potential economic lift-off.
Many Cubans are convinced that, even though the lifting of the blockade restrictions that are still in place could be portrayed as a political victory of the Cuban government and help it economically in the short term, it would also immediately and significantly affect its ability to maintain its current monopoly over the country’s politics and economy and make it more difficult to justify any form of internal repression. In the mid-term, it could also become an important factor in a democratic change that will allow us to overcome current circumstances.
Some reactionaries from the new Cuban Right in power may try to do everything in their power to keep the blockade in place, in order to continue justifying absolute control over the country and acts of internal repression. The United States, however, should pay no attention to such a potential move.
We know the kind of pressures brought to bear on Washington from the traditional Cuban right based in that country, the significance that Florida voters have and how strongly US leaders condemn the model of government and State established in Cuba.
President Obama recently declared there was a need to “update” the United States’ policy towards Cuba. The conclusion of the 2nd CELAC Summit and the events that took place around it constitute a good moment for US Democrats to undertake such a policy re-evaluation, considering that, in the time left until the next US presidential elections, an effective change of policy towards Cuba could help the island’s process of democratization (not so any kind of continuation of current restrictions).
That would imply defeating the policies defended by Cuban-born Republican congress people and securing more votes for the Democrats in Florida.
That the complete lifting of the blockade will not result in a real or virtual annexation of the country that could be in the interests of the traditional or new Cuban Right, where there is no shortage of people willing to sell the country piecemeal in exchange for being allowed to remain in power, will depend on all Cubans who defend freedom, independence and sovereignty.