By Nicholas Wapshott
THERE has been a lot of clucking about US President Barack Obama shaking hands with Raúl Castro at the funeral of Nelson Mandela. For some it was bad enough that a president the Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin accused of “palling around with terrorists” should extend his hand to a Cuban communist tyrant, while mourning a world hero that former Vice President Dick Cheney still thinks was a terrorist.
Whether Obama was entering into Mandela’s contagious spirit of reconciliation and forgiveness, or following in the footsteps of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan in reaching out to communist enemies, or merely being good-mannered is not clear. What seems plain, however, is that nothing much will come of it. The trade and travel embargo imposed upon Cuba by the United States in 1960 after the communist revolution nationalised American-owned property will remain in force.
But is maintaining the Cuban freeze a good thing for America? For the world? For Cubans? No, no, and no.
Let’s backtrack. It is almost a century since Vladimir Lenin’s 1917 October Revolution launched Russia on an experiment, inspired by the ideas of Karl Marx, to purge market forces from human affairs. In Marxism-Leninism, capitalism was deemed an affront to humanity, and the eternal system of the free exchange of goods between individuals for money was made illegal and replaced by centrally planned decisions about what to produce and distribute according to a grand plan laid down by the self-elected elite who ran the Soviet communist party.
After seven decades of famine, forced migrations, shortages and dysfunction, accompanied by torture, tyranny and the internal exile, incarceration in gulags and slaughter of 12 million Russians, that grandiose experiment in what was laughably called “socialism” ended in disaster. While those living under capitalism generally grew ever more happy, healthy, and rich, the Soviets could not even feed their own without begging for crumbs from their sworn enemy, the United States.
Thanks to the courage of millions of unnamed and largely forgotten martyrs who fought to end Marxism-Leninism – the true heroes of the Soviet Union – and largely forgotten dissident leaders like Imre Nagy in Hungary and Alexander Dubcek in Czechoslovakia, followed by Lech Walesa in Poland, aided and abetted by the Polish Pope John Paul II, with Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher cheering from the bleachers, communism in Russia imploded, bringing down with it the Soviet puppet regimes in Eastern Europe.
The most prominent among the remaining handful of old-school communist holdouts is China, which has kept the Soviet system’s stultifying central planning while imposing on its captive people high-growth state capitalism – an authoritarian, Dickensian system that combines the horrors of both worlds. There is also North Korea, which starves its people to near extinction and is presided over by a Mickey Mouse-loving boy king who bases his governing style on Game of Thrones.
And there is Cuba, a family-run despotic gerontocracy where Raúl Castro, 82, seized the walker from his brother Fidel, 86, when he became debilitated by dementia. Fidel Castro’s sole claim to fame since his bloody revolution is to have brought the world to the brink of extinction in the Cuban Nuclear Missile Crisis of 1962.
So long as the doddering Castro brothers are in charge, Cuba is ripe for another revolution. But this time it will be a free market revolt, not a plunge into further darkness. And what would speed the peaceful liberation of Cubans from half a century of tyranny is if America began negotiations without delay to dismantle the state-run mayhem in exchange for restoring diplomatic and trade relations.
Obama has already started the process by allowing in 2009 Cuban-Americans to send money back to their families trapped in penury. He also relaxed the travel ban and encouraged American communications companies to extend their reach to Cuba. America has also increased trade with Cuba in food, medicine, and humanitarian aid.
The principle of engaging with Cuba was therefore established four years ago. It would be straightforward to move to the next stage, trading goods for human rights, normalisation for individual liberties, and hand shaking for closed fists.
With an eye on his legacy, John Kerry has proved a hyperactive Secretary of State who could add freeing Cuba to his wish list. If he can negotiate away Iran’s nuclear programme and disarm Bashar al-Assad’s poison gas caches, pushing at Cuba’s open door to freedom would seem an obvious step in finally ending Lenin’s failed attempt to eradicate the trading and bartering that lies at the heart of human nature. Both Kerry and the defence secretary, the Republican Chuck Hagel, approve of relaxing the embargo.
So let the free market rip. The feeble remnants of Cuban communism cannot survive a tidal wave of American investors, nor the soft power of millions of American visitors bearing endless goodwill, open hearts, and wallets stuffed with hard currency. What better way of showing the superiority of unbridled market forces over Marxist-driven, centrally-directed, unachievable five-year plans than to crack open this festering fossil on our doorstep? Who could possibly object to that?
There is a snag. By an accident of geography and history, Florida, the nearest American state to Cuba, is a sanctuary for escapees from Cuban communism. It is also a swing state that every presidential candidate needs to woo. A substantial majority of Americans have long favoured easing the Cuba trade embargo, but Cuban-Americans in Florida will not hear of it.
Florida politicians like Republican presidential wannabe Senator Marco Rubio, whose grandparents were illegal immigrants from Cuba, and Florida Congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, as well as the Democratic Senator for New Jersey, Bob Menendez, continue to oppose the resumption of normal relations. In keeping alive hatred towards the old country for their personal reasons, they are proving themselves as cruel and hidebound as the regime they affect to despise but are inadvertently keeping in power.
If Florida did not hold a special place in the electoral system, as evidenced by its key role in awarding George W. Bush rather than Al Gore the presidency in the neck-and-neck election of 2000, the Cuban embargo would have been abandoned years ago. Yet through a glitch in the electoral system, the best interests of the United States are being held hostage by a minority of a minority.
Some conservatives describe majority rule, or one man-one vote, or living with the outcomes of elections, as “the tyranny of the majority”. The rest of us call it democracy. In Cuba, a small number of old, confused men hold the rest of the nation hostage. They call it democracy. When the same thing happens in the US the “tyranny of the majority” crowd call it “safeguarding the rights of minorities”.
We have seen this movie before, in the House, where the Tea Party rump of the Republican majority – the minority of a majority – hold hostage Speaker John Boehner, its party’s leadership, the House, as well as the whole of the legislative branch. Those anarcho-conservative House members who don’t believe in government, nor taxation, nor majority rule, nor maximising the numbers voting, like to extol the principles laid down by the Founding Fathers and urge the Supreme Court to interpret the Constitution according to what the Founders meant.
So would the Founders really insist that millions of Americans remain out of work and economic growth be kept in check just to please a minority of a minority? Or punish the unemployed for being unable to find a job after many months of searching? Or leave Cubans trapped in a hateful system to satisfy old grudges long forgotten? It seems most unlikely.
The opinions expressed here are those of the author, a columnist for Reuters
By Nicholas Wapshott