On June 19 the European Union, at the urging of Spain, which has significant economic interests in Cuba, voted unanimously to lift the diplomatic sanctions it had imposed on Cuba five years ago. The EU will now renew the process of political dialogue with Cuba and resume development aid. The EU External Relations Commissioner, Benita Ferrero-Walder, has said that Europe wants to encourage the reform process initiated by President Raúl Castro.
This type of carrot-and-stick engagement with Cuba is, of course, very different from the American ‘big stick’ approach, which first began as a partial economic embargo by President Dwight Eisenhower against Fidel Castro’s Cuba, in October 1960, at the height of the Cold War. It is an attitude that has hardened over successive administrations and which has arguably forestalled the pace of change in Cuba.
Now, even as President Raúl Castro appears to be inching Cuba towards a new model of economic governance and development, there is no evidence as yet of radical political reform or that he is about to abandon fully the Communist system imposed after the 1959 Revolution.
Yet, there is a strong sense that Raúl Castro is much influenced by what has been happening in China and Vietnam, where Communism still prevails – but not as Marx, Lenin, Mao or even Fidel might know it.
In China and Vietnam, although the political control of the ruling party is still paramount, economic liberalization and expansion have meant that these countries have been transformed beyond recognition, particularly over the past decade. Economic growth and social change are now taking place at an amazing rate for two countries previously marked by political repression, extreme social conservatism and the economic dogma of the command economy. Whilst government control and planning are still dominant, they have been combined with free-market incentives, as private enterprise and foreign investment have been encouraged, in pursuit of what the Vietnamese call a “socialist-oriented market economy.”
In Cuba, Raúl Castro, known for his pragmatism and impatience with incompetence, appears to be taking tentative steps towards opening up the economy, even as he adheres to the political imperative of keeping the Revolution alive.
To some, this might seem to be no more than a nod in the direction of big brother, Fidel, and his giant shadow over Cuba and its future. In this respect, it would also be a sop to the hard core of the Cuban Communist Party, who are firmly resistant to reform and their potential loss of control. However, Raúl’s thinking is perhaps conditioned by a clear recognition of Cuba’s vulnerable geopolitical reality, which for the party necessitates the survival of the Revolution and continued control of the state apparatus and the people.
Change in Cuba may be inevitable, but it must be managed and it must be on terms dictated by the ruling elite who have held power for almost fifty years now. Indeed, they are determined that the Cuban exiles in Miami, succoured and encouraged by the US government and caricatured as waiting impatiently in their pleasure boats for the moment when they might speed across the Florida Straits to reclaim that which they claim to have lost or to lay claim with US business interests to a future bonanza, will wait in vain.
It is, of course, generally accepted outside the White House and Little Havana that the Revolution and Communism have only really survived this long in Cuba because of the ill-conceived, aggressive and counterproductive US embargo. For it is the embargo and the constant threat of US aggression that allowed Fidel Castro to maintain the siege mentality and solidarity of the majority of the Cuban people and to justify the hardships they faced.
There is no doubt that the American attitude is largely to blame for Cuba being a closed society for so long. On the other hand, there is no doubt either that the Revolution and Communism have survived because of the denial of freedom and basic human rights by a dictatorial regime, clinging desperately to a bankrupt ideology and woefully inefficient system.
Certainly for the older generations who lived through the tyranny, corruption, depravation and deprivation of the Fulgencio Batista dictatorship, the Revolution brought a new sense of dignity and hope, even as it provided for the people’s basic needs. But for succeeding generations who took the benefits of the Revolution for granted and longed for greater freedom to express themselves and to prosper, there has been only disillusion. The promise of the early years simply never materialised.
Notwithstanding Cuba’s great strides in the health, science and education sectors, and the guarantee of certain minimal, but generally decent, standards of health care, nutrition, education and recreation, Communism in Cuba has failed to deliver incremental benefits to the Cuban people and provide sufficiently for their material needs over the years, just as it has failed elsewhere.
However, Raúl Castro appears to have a clearer idea than his older brother of what the Cuban people want and need. He is beginning to implement carefully targeted measures, mainly designed to improve domestic economic output, through some agricultural reform, limited liberalization of the domestic consumer goods market and, most recently and significantly, the removal of official wage caps in an effort to boost productivity. The critics say that these moves are “piecemeal” and do not go far enough.
President Castro has also embarked on a process of gradual political reform following a national consultative process begun last year. But even though there are signs that there is space for more open dialogue, the process is still being tightly managed by the Communist Party. The US has written off these moves as “purely cosmetic.”
But Raúl Castro has to move slowly, lest he upset the delicate balance of the forces of continuity and change. The big question is whether he or whoever succeeds him can find the middle ground between the evils of repressive Communism and of unfettered capitalism.
