Pages

Tuesday, August 09, 2011

Engagement With Cuba Is Way to Undermine Communist Rule: View

Engagement With Cuba Is Way to Undermine Communist Rule: View
By the Editors Aug 9, 2011 2:00 AM GMT+0200

Ever since Fidel Castro seized power in Cuba in 1959, the U.S. has
sought to undermine his rule. It hasn't worked. Perhaps officials in
Washington should consider adapting the more successful strategy pursued
to undermine communism in Eastern Europe.

The Castro regime has been a tragedy for the Cuban people. After taking
over, Castro imposed a doctrinaire communist dictatorship that
eliminated political freedoms and gave the state and the Communist Party
almost complete control of the economy. Until 1991, Cuba was sustained
by generous subsidies from the Soviet Union. In response to Castro's
alliance with the Soviets, his support for revolution throughout Latin
America, and his denial of basic freedoms to the Cuban people, the U.S.
imposed an embargo and severely limited Cubans' contacts with Americans.
During the 1960s, the U.S. also tried to assassinate Castro and
sponsored an ill-planned invasion of the island by Cuban exiles.

Yet the Castro dictatorship remains firmly in power, now under President
Raul Castro, Fidel's brother.

In September 2010, Fidel Castro admitted to journalist Jeffrey Goldberg
(now a Bloomberg View columnist) that socialism no longer worked, even
in Cuba. Castro's regime might even lose its latest benefactor if
Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez, who sells oil to the government in
Havana at reduced prices, dies or is forced to leave office for health
reasons.

In recent months, Raul Castro's government has enacted small reforms,
such as allowing Cubans to purchase DVD players, computers and mobile
phones. This year, the regime took its most significant step: By the end
of 2011, Cubans will be allowed to buy and sell real estate, subject to
as-yet-unspecified restrictions. The government also said it would
eliminate more than 1 million state jobs to force workers to find
private- sector employment; and it will loosen state controls on
agriculture and small business.

Raul Castro is at best a transitional figure, whose goal is to reform
the communist economic system, not replace it. In April, the Sixth
Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba approved the legalization of
real-estate transactions, but emphasized that the role of private
property would remain small to avoid "capitalism and its hunger for
luxury." Raul Castro has shown no inclination to loosen the Communist
Party's total control of politics.

The U.S. should have learned long ago that cutting trade links and
stopping contact between Americans and Cubans haven't worked to
undermine communist rule.

In the case of communism in Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union,
officials in Washington chose a different strategy. The U.S. maintained
diplomatic and trade relations, allowed tourists and businessmen to
visit, and encouraged cultural exchanges. After the fall of the Berlin
Wall in 1989, Eastern Europeans recalled how their chance encounters
with Westerners gave them access to uncensored news and a chance to
compare their lives with those in democratic, free-market societies. For
many behind the Iron Curtain, having to negotiate with a Western
backpacker for unavailable goods, such as blue jeans, demonstrated
communism's bankruptcy.

President Barack Obama has loosened the ban on travel to Cuba, allowing
Cuban Americans to travel as many times as they wish without the need
for a license from the Treasury.

The administration should take the next step: allow Americans without
family in Cuba to visit the island. While this would provide additional
tourism revenue, it would also undermine the regime's effort to maintain
its monopoly on the flow of information. When the U.S. Interests Section
in Havana began streaming uncensored news on a Times Square-like ticker
tape around its building, Cuban officials complained bitterly that the
U.S. was interfering in Cuba's internal affairs.

Obama should also seek to strengthen Cuba's fledgling private sector.
One approach would be to create an exemption in U.S. law that would let
Americans buy Cuban goods produced by private farmers or other small
businesses. Those who support the embargo say the U.S. should change its
policies only when the government in Cuba does. It is up to American
hardliners to explain why it isn't in the U.S. interest to promote
private enterprise.

For 50 years, the Castro family has bedeviled the government in
Washington. But as we have seen in the Arab Spring, sometimes small
changes and simple acts can prompt historic events. It's worth a try.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-08-09/engagement-with-cuba-is-way-to-undermine-communist-rule-view.html

No comments: