Copyright: Eric S. Margolis, 2002
May 20, 2002
It has often been said that Jimmy Carter is the best ex-President the US ever had. Last week, he traveled to Cuba to meet Fidel Castro. In a dramatic live broadcast on national TV, Carter, speaking in Spanish, called for free speech, democratic elections, and an end to America's punishing trade embargo of the island nation of 11.2 million. Castro, who has ruled Cuba as a Stalinist dictator since 1958, sat silently as Carter told Cubans it was time to join the democratic world.
If anyone represents the moral side of America, it is Jimmy Carter. He has devoted his post-presidential years to working for human rights. Many people, myself included, used to sneer at him as a naïve do-gooder, but over the decades he has quietly soldiered onwards, reminding the world that America is about much more than controlling other people's oil, or exporting violent films and predigested fast food.
Carter's humble decency is in sharp contrast to the bellicose, unilateralist Bush Administration, which is increasingly viewed abroad as the reborn Ugly Americans of the 1960's, men who combined missionary zeal with arrogance and ignorance. In a disgraceful, clumsy attempt to embarrass President Carter during his Cuban trip, the Administration claimed Cuba was developing biological warfare weapons and selling them to `rogue' states such as Libya, Syria, and Iran. President Bush sought to further embarrass Carter by announcing additional restrictions on American travel to Cuba.
But when asked for proof that Cuba was exporting germ weapons, the Bush Administration quickly backed down, lamely claiming Cuba 'might' have biowarfare capability because of its advanced pharmaceutical research. So might Canada, Sweden, or Iraq.
There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the contentious Cuban question. Castro is an old-style communist dictator who presides over a totalitarian police state that violates human rights. Thanks to four decades of tropical socialism, Cubans today have a lower living standard that Chinese, though Cuba's education and health care are of high quality. I remember Cuba before Castro: back in the 1950's, it was the most developed, best educated, most cultured nation of the West Indies. Havana is a century older than New York City.
Republicans insist ending sanctions and travel restrictions will only aid Castro's dictatorship. They have a point. Canada `engaged' Cuba with trade and tourism in hope of liberalizing the Castro regime. The effort failed miserably; in fact, the Castro regime become more repressive. Canada's prime minister should have made Carter's tough speech to Cubans, instead of mouthing platitudes.
But, as Democrats point out, the US is in bed with all sorts of ugly, anti-democratic regimes, most recently, the communist dictatorships of Central Asia. The US trades with communist China and Vietnam. Why not tiny, bedraggled Cuba?
Two reasons. First, Fidel Castro has openly defied the mighty United States for over forty years. Empires do not like being challenged. Castro's insolence and audacity have long enraged Americans, and emboldened anti-American elements in Latin America. Castro has battled against US influence in the Americas and Africa. He was a loyal ally of the Soviet Union. During the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, Castro even begged Moscow to launch nuclear missiles against the USA. If ever the US had an enemy, it is Fidel Castro.
Second, because of the influence of ardently anti-Castro Cuban-American voters in the key swing states of Florida and New Jersey. Bush's current anti-Castro rhetoric is clearly aimed at Cuban-American voters in this fall's tight Congressional elections. In an editorial this week, the august `New York Times' opined that many `are tired of having American foreign policy hijacked by anti-Castro activists in a key electoral state' meaning Florida, where the president's brother Jeb is governor.
Speaking of hijacking, in the `Times' view, it's perfectly acceptable for Israeli-Americans in key states to shape US Mideast policy through their powerful Israel lobby, which has reduced Congress to clapping seals, but not, it seems, for Cuban-Americans to do the same.
As I reported from Cuba in 1999, an overpowering sense of `fin du regime' hangs over Havana, reminiscent of Eastern Europe and the Soviet Union before the fall of communism in 1989-1991. Cuba's communist system is unlikely to survive Fidel Castro, who is now 76.
Castro remains more a venerated national father figure than typical Marxist dictator. As a Cuban said to me, `we are a totalitarian state with high morals.' This is true. Most supporters of Cuban see it as a paragon of social justice while ignoring its brutal abuse of human and political rights, or spreading corruption among the pampered communist elite.
In spite of recent criticism of Castro's record by Mexico, he is still widely respected across Latin America for `machismo' in standing up to the bullying `gringos.' He retains a reputation as a man of honesty and principal - qualities sadly lacking among most Latin American dictators or democratic politicians.
However unpalatable, it's time for the US to open the doors to Cuba, if for no better reason than to ensure the post-Castro transition does not become a bloodbath or another dictatorship. Kudos to Jimmy Carter for his intelligent, humane policy initiative. I hope his next trip is to Baghdad.
<--full details.
