Hasta La Victoria Siempre
With suspicion growing that Fidel Castro’s handover of power may not be temporary, some on the left may be prompted to mark the occasion with ill-considered statements like these from George Galloway, speaking to the Independent on Sunday in 2004.
Galloway - He’s a hero. Fidel Castro is a hero.
IOS - He's a dict. . .
Galloway - I don't believe that Fidel Castro is a dictator
IOS - I honestly can't think of anything to say to this.
Galloway - Fidel Castro is a great revolutionary leader. But for 40 years or more of siege, undoubtedly Cuba would have developed, democratically speaking, differently. But when the enemy is at the gates, spending billions to destroy the revolution, you have to accept that there will be restrictions on political freedoms in a place like Cuba.
IOS - You've met El Presidente, I take it
Galloway - Yes. Magnificent. He’s the most magnificent human being I’ve ever met.
Of course, there’s no doubting the social benefits Cuba enjoys as compared to many of its regional neighbours, and this achieved under decades of siege from world’s only superpower. Writing in the UK Guardian in July 2003, Seamus Milne pointed out that, “Cuba has achieved first world health and education standards in a third world country, its infant mortality and literacy rates now rivalling or outstripping those of the US, its class sizes a third smaller than in Britain - while next door, in the US-backed ‘democracy’ of Haiti, half the population is unable to read and infant mortality is over 10 times higher…[Cuba] has sent 50,000 doctors to work for free in 93 third world countries and given a free university education to 1,000 third world students a year”.
Moreover, had Cuba not repelled the advances of its American suitor, the island’s people might well have suffered the gruesome fate of others in the region; countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Panama where US-backed state terror of various descriptions inflicted bloodbaths reminiscent of the conquistadors’ worst excesses, as the IMF drove one economy after another into the ground.
But Castro’s regime is still responsible for human rights abuses which are in no way excused by the far worse crimes of his enemies. Amnesty International reported in March 2005 that people “imprisoned for peacefully expressing their beliefs and opinions… [had been] handcuffed and kept in tiny ‘punishment cells’ infested with rats and cockroaches. …Prison guards reportedly stamped on the neck of Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, causing him to pass out during a beating last November while he was handcuffed. Another man, Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, was reportedly stripped and beaten by guards. …[The men] were arrested for ‘offences’ such as publishing critical articles or communicating with human rights groups”.
As Galloway points out, Cuba is a nation under siege, not least by a murderous sanctions regime. When Britain curtailed its civil liberties during World War II there were decent justifications for those measures under the circumstances. But is it strictly necessary, in the interests of defending one’s country, to stamp on someone's neck for “peacefully expressing their beliefs and opinions”? And can the man ultimately responsible for such abuses seriously be described, quite unambiguously, as “a hero… the most magnificent human being I’ve ever met”?
An extremely strong case can be made for saying that, on balance, Cuba is comparatively better off under Castro than as a US client state. But there are at least elements on the left who, to my mind, need to be able to hold these two thoughts in their head simultaneously:
(a) Cuba is better off independent of the US; and
(b) Castro has presided over a repressive, human-rights abusing dictatorship that should be replaced with a democracy without any delay.
As political change unfolds, Cuba may now see openings emerge that offer the chance to build a democracy, where economic and social welfare come together with real political and social freedoms. This independent development could be underwritten by growing international partnerships, with Latin America in general and oil-rich Venezuela in particular. In fact, the rise of an independent South America may have come at just the wrong time for those who'd like to see Cuba return to the brutal regime of Batista. It would be ironic if the death of Castro – celebrated by his enemies as the end of Cuba’s resistance to the US – turned out to be the prelude to the island’s historic split from Washington becoming permanent and irreversible. A democratic, independent Cuba, integrated with the rest of Latin America, would be all but unassailable; morally, politically and economically. The long-predicted outcome of Castro’s demise is by no means a done deal yet.
Galloway - He’s a hero. Fidel Castro is a hero.
IOS - He's a dict. . .
Galloway - I don't believe that Fidel Castro is a dictator
IOS - I honestly can't think of anything to say to this.
Galloway - Fidel Castro is a great revolutionary leader. But for 40 years or more of siege, undoubtedly Cuba would have developed, democratically speaking, differently. But when the enemy is at the gates, spending billions to destroy the revolution, you have to accept that there will be restrictions on political freedoms in a place like Cuba.
IOS - You've met El Presidente, I take it
Galloway - Yes. Magnificent. He’s the most magnificent human being I’ve ever met.
Of course, there’s no doubting the social benefits Cuba enjoys as compared to many of its regional neighbours, and this achieved under decades of siege from world’s only superpower. Writing in the UK Guardian in July 2003, Seamus Milne pointed out that, “Cuba has achieved first world health and education standards in a third world country, its infant mortality and literacy rates now rivalling or outstripping those of the US, its class sizes a third smaller than in Britain - while next door, in the US-backed ‘democracy’ of Haiti, half the population is unable to read and infant mortality is over 10 times higher…[Cuba] has sent 50,000 doctors to work for free in 93 third world countries and given a free university education to 1,000 third world students a year”.
Moreover, had Cuba not repelled the advances of its American suitor, the island’s people might well have suffered the gruesome fate of others in the region; countries like El Salvador, Nicaragua, Guatemala and Panama where US-backed state terror of various descriptions inflicted bloodbaths reminiscent of the conquistadors’ worst excesses, as the IMF drove one economy after another into the ground.
But Castro’s regime is still responsible for human rights abuses which are in no way excused by the far worse crimes of his enemies. Amnesty International reported in March 2005 that people “imprisoned for peacefully expressing their beliefs and opinions… [had been] handcuffed and kept in tiny ‘punishment cells’ infested with rats and cockroaches. …Prison guards reportedly stamped on the neck of Juan Carlos Herrera Acosta, causing him to pass out during a beating last November while he was handcuffed. Another man, Luis Enrique Ferrer Garcia, was reportedly stripped and beaten by guards. …[The men] were arrested for ‘offences’ such as publishing critical articles or communicating with human rights groups”.
As Galloway points out, Cuba is a nation under siege, not least by a murderous sanctions regime. When Britain curtailed its civil liberties during World War II there were decent justifications for those measures under the circumstances. But is it strictly necessary, in the interests of defending one’s country, to stamp on someone's neck for “peacefully expressing their beliefs and opinions”? And can the man ultimately responsible for such abuses seriously be described, quite unambiguously, as “a hero… the most magnificent human being I’ve ever met”?
An extremely strong case can be made for saying that, on balance, Cuba is comparatively better off under Castro than as a US client state. But there are at least elements on the left who, to my mind, need to be able to hold these two thoughts in their head simultaneously:
(a) Cuba is better off independent of the US; and
(b) Castro has presided over a repressive, human-rights abusing dictatorship that should be replaced with a democracy without any delay.
As political change unfolds, Cuba may now see openings emerge that offer the chance to build a democracy, where economic and social welfare come together with real political and social freedoms. This independent development could be underwritten by growing international partnerships, with Latin America in general and oil-rich Venezuela in particular. In fact, the rise of an independent South America may have come at just the wrong time for those who'd like to see Cuba return to the brutal regime of Batista. It would be ironic if the death of Castro – celebrated by his enemies as the end of Cuba’s resistance to the US – turned out to be the prelude to the island’s historic split from Washington becoming permanent and irreversible. A democratic, independent Cuba, integrated with the rest of Latin America, would be all but unassailable; morally, politically and economically. The long-predicted outcome of Castro’s demise is by no means a done deal yet.
posted by David Wearing at 3:20 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home