Cui Bono II: George W. Bush’s Draconian Anti-Cuba Measures
Saul Landau
Progreso Weekly, 20 May 2004
Bush’s new anti-Cuba policies cut family visits, restrict US travel, reduce the amount of remittances and invade Cuba’s TV space with hostile programming. Why, ask people from all sectors of the spectrum, would Bush initiate more unprovoked hostility?
The new policies have received negative reviews from leading dissidents in Cuba like Osvaldo Paya and Elizardo Sanchez, mixed reviews at best from the Miami Cuban community and harshly critical comments from the business world. David Gumpert, writing in May 3 Business Week, attributes "the Bush Administration's move as directed toward winning votes in Florida next November." He also questions the "heavy-handed government intimidation tactics and questionable maneuvering of terrorism-related resources."
The May 10 Financial Times calls Bush’s maneuvers "a distortion of US foreign policy priorities" and lays blame on "lobbying pressure by the most right-wing Cuban-Americans." The editorial calls the Bush moves "exactly the opposite of what is needed to promote openness, tolerance and democracy in Cuba."
Republican and Democratic Members of both Houses criticized the new actions. Arizona Republican House Member Jeff Flake said Bush’s policies obstructed real change for freedom. "The best way to plant democratic seeds in Cuba is to allow Americans to travel freely to the island." Montana Democratic Senator Max Baucus labeled as "absurd and increasingly bizarre" Bush’s "obsession with Cuba." Baucus called the moves "a dangerous diversion from reality." Other conservative and middle of the road anti-Castro sources agreed that Bush’s tactics retard rather than advance US objectives.
What are those objectives in 2004? The Bushies have opted for policies that conflict with the interests of large capital and capitulate to the demands of a cabal of Cuban exiles who have made fortunes, reputations and political power bases out of the Cuba trade embargo and travel ban. Coincidentally, this group also provided the money and muscle for W’s dubious 2000 Florida victory and played more than a casual role in getting W’s brother Jeb re-elected as Florida governor in 2002.
Ironically, the debate on Cuba policy has turned semantic in nature. For forty-five years, US presidents have made "Freedom" the symbol of anti-Castro rhetoric. "Freedom" justified assassination attempts and terrorism because the noble goal was to overthrow an "unfree" communist dictatorship". Look closely and historically – at the use of the word "freedom" and one sees it was not meant to apply to the Cuban people. Indeed, from the onset of Cuban "independence" until Castro’s government in 1959, US Administrations routinely backed dictators and thieves alike. So, we can imply, "freedom" pertains to Americans freely doing their business in Cuba, from multinational corporate owned sugar mills to Mafia gambling emporiums – just as they did before Castro.
Now, after four plus decades of failure to restore this kind of "freedom" through an embargo and travel ban, Bush declares he will make these harsh but unsuccessful features even tougher. "We're not waiting for the day of Cuban freedom, we are working for the day of freedom in Cuba," Bush snapped at reporters on May 6, as if this would clarify the aims of his new restrictions.
As he rhetorically justifies his Iraq disaster as a quest for a "free Iraq," so too does Bush overuse "freedom" to explain punishing Cuba. His new "freedom" regulations mean less US dollars for the Cuban people. Such a move Bush associates with hurting Fidel himself, although Castro has not yet missed a meal because of such policies.
What the new rhetoric does, however, is escalate hostilities and set the stage for worse relations. Bush even declared his intention to interfere with Cuba’s succession plan, one designed to pass presidential power from Fidel to his younger brother, Raul Castro; in other words, regime change.
The new policy assault on Cuba began on October 10, 2003 when Bush appointed a Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, headed by Colin Powell. The unhappy but ever obedient Secretary rejected "the continuation of a communist dictatorship" in Cuba and recommended instead measures "to focus pressure and attention on the ruling elite so that a succession by this elite or any one of its individuals is seen as what it would be: an impediment to a democratic and free Cuba."
Cubans, like other third world people who have experienced intervention, see danger signals when US presidents have concerns for "freedom" in their country. Historically, such language precedes the use of overt or covert action to ensure "freedom" for US capital in that country. That working definition has prevailed for more than a century.
"I speak to you as a friend," John F. Kennedy postured to the Cuban people on October 22, 1962, during the Missile Crisis. In April 1961, Kennedy had authorized 1,500 anti-revolutionary Cubans to invade the island at the Bay of Pigs. Before and after that Bay of Pigs fiasco, he had directed the CIA to terrorize Cuba with assassination and sabotage missions. Kennedy had the chutzpah to describe himself to Cubans "as one who knows your aspirations for liberty and justice for all." Kennedy’s compassion had cost hundreds of Cuban lives and the destruction of millions of dollars of public property. When Kennedy talked about how Cuba’s "nationalist revolution was betrayed" and how its "leaders are no longer Cuban leaders inspired by Cuban ideals," the Cuban people had real reason to worry.
US presidents don’t mention that the revolution brought rights to Cubans that "freedom" had not delivered: education, health care, housing and a real share of the national wealth. But Kennedy insisted that he wanted Cubans to be "free to choose their own leaders, free to select their own system, free to own their own land, free to speak and write and worship without fear or degradation."
In the past, when Latin Americans chose leaders that did not win Washington’s approval, the CIA or US military forces removed them. The United States did, however, approve of Cuban leaders like Gerardo "The Butcher" Machado (1925-32) and the tyrant Fulgencio Batista in the 1950s, neither of whom gave a fig for human rights. They did, however, grant total "freedom" for US capital on the island, which inspired the 1959 revolution.
Cuban friends on the island laugh when Bush poses as a friend of Cuba’s people. But they also worry. Part of their concern stems from the fact that Bush has defied the traditional US economic elite. The old and truly conservative establishment wrings its collective hands in despair over the tragic events in Iraq. So too with Bush’s Cuba policies, the pillars of capital shake their heads in dismay.
Indeed, like other large grain exporting multinational leaders, G. Allen Andreas, the CEO of Archer Daniels Midland, hardly liberal in his outlook, told Congress to drop the embargo and travel ban, not tighten them. Even Larry Wilkerson, the Secretary of State’s chief of staff, opined negatively on the policy that his own boss, Powell, had formally advanced.
"When all you use is a stick, you're not going to get very far," Wilkerson said in a June 2004 GQ article by Wil Hylton. Negotiation, Wilkerson added, "can make more progress than if you just sanction somebody and walk off and say, ‘That's it, I'm not dealing with you anymore.’" The GQ article describes Wilkerson as having achieved "mind meld" with Powell after 15 years of working together. "Dumbest policy on the face of the Earth," Wilkerson is quoted as saying. "It's crazy."
The Establishment, or those who articulate big capital’s interests, understands that politicians must compromise between the exigencies of running for and holding high office and the optimal goals of multinational corporations. But, suggests people like Wilkerson, the anti-Castro lobby, which has gained both high profile and extensive national power, has overtaken the needs of global capital. A small group of determined Cuban exiles has made the embargo and travel ban the twin pillars of its financial and political power base. Using "punishing Castro" as their eternal slogan, these south Florida hustlers have outfoxed and out lobbied giants like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson’s Food (Chicken).
This does not mean, I assure nervous friends, that Bush will designate Cuba as next on his invasion list – even if he had sufficient troops to deploy. Currently, the Bushies have sent more than one hundred thousand men and women to Afghanistan and Iraq and scurry to operate 730 bases around the world without daring to raise the possibility of a draft in an election year. Given that the administration faces emerging scandals with photos of US soldiers torturing Iraqi prisoners, Bush can only offer harsh, non-military measures against Cuba. TV Marti will transmit images from a C-130 plane. Few will see them. Restrictions on legal remittances will not likely reduce the money that Florida Cubans send to relatives – about $1 billion a year. The money will find its way to Cuba, illegally.
Other restrictions that press Cuba’s economy, may spur a new round of refugees, a significant problem for Florida. But the Bushies don’t care about consequences, as we see in Iraq. The focus is on winning in 2004. In the meantime, they deliver to Fidel yet another good anti-imperialist issue around which he can mobilize the Cuban people.
Copyright 2004 Progreso Weekly
|
