The Atlantic - Latest Comments in More On Cuba

Re: More On Cuba

Juba — Mon, 13 Apr 2009 19:10:00 -0000

Cuba may well remain poor regardless of whatever economic system the Castro brothers insist upon or relent to. A powerful argument that Cuban loyalists to La Revolucion have made for years is this:

"Why should we play ball with Uncle Sam? So that maybe one day we can mimic the fortunes of such economic island dynamos like Jamaica, Haiti, Puerto Rico or the Dominican Republic?"

Lets not fool ourselves here, thats a tough point to counter.

Re: More On Cuba

zacksback — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:50:37 -0000

That should have been up under my original post above. Hope you can find it anyway, T-N. And happy Easter!

Re: More On Cuba

zacksback — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 15:48:39 -0000

Didn't mean to imply you were. Using your statement to match my grammatical style to it, is all. And the question about you and Kenyatta was rhetorical.

ITA that the embargo is useless and doesn't help in getting rid of Castro. My point was that our acquiescence to his policy of regular contact between Cuban-Americans and their families in Cuba is just as ineffective in fomenting change there.

In short, our policy is totally fucked two-fold: We are using both the wrong carrot and the wrong stick.

Re: More On Cuba

adamnvillani — Sat, 11 Apr 2009 13:54:59 -0000

Well, you said it was "far more democratic." And then you admit that there's nothing democratic about it at all.

If you ask me, we can start arguing over the merits of Cuba's economic, healthcare, educational, and political systems when they start allowing their people some sort of way of expressing a preference on the matter ---- by letting their people leave if they don't like it, by allowing a free press, by allowing dissent, or even (Fidel would hate this) allowing them to vote. If the Cuban people really thought the system was so fantastic, then what would the Castros have to be afraid of?

Re: More On Cuba

Yinka Wills — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 21:15:05 -0000

This extract from Wiki,sums up to me the double standards involved.

>The 1963 U.S. embargo was reinforced in October 1992 by the Cuban Democracy Act (the "Torricelli Law") and in 1996 by the Cuban Liberty and Democracy Solidarity Act (known as the Helms-Burton Act) which penalizes foreign companies that do business in Cuba by preventing them from doing business in the US. The justification provided for these restrictions was that these companies were trafficking in stolen U.S. properties, and should, thus, be excluded from the United States...

I dont think the embargo is really about democracy, but about the outrage over confiscated businesses, both exiled Cubans and American companies- otherwise there would be a similar embargo on a number of countries that have no democracy and abuse human rights that the US happily does business with such as Saudi Arabia and China.

As a black female, I'd prefer to take my chances living in Cuba rather than Saudi Arabia.

A good way forward would be to keep the direct US-Cuba trade embargo but repeal any legislation that seeks to prevent non US companies from trading with Cuba by preventing them from also being able to trade with the US.

I agree that it is highly undesirable to have the office of head of state rotate amongst family members unless the country is officially operating a consitutional monarchy. For example,someone who was head of one of the security services, becoming head of state, and later that office being filled by a close relative smacks of...oh sorry, I forgot. G Bush senior, former head of the CIA became President, then eight years later, his ill equipped son became one via a rigged election...

Re: More On Cuba

Louis Proyect — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 18:10:48 -0000

Could you at least back it up with some sort of evidence on the democratic bona fides of Cuba?

---

Of course not. But I didn't say it was a democracy. Cuba can only become a democracy when the U.S. renounces interfering in the internal affairs of other countries. I just read a fascinating biography of George Soros, subtitled accurately "messianic billionaire". Soros has the balls to brag about the hundreds of millions of dollars he poured into Eastern Europe to topple governments he did not approve of. Doesn't it dawn on people that the U.S. is the only country in the world that functions this way? Could you imagine what would happen if Cuba began funding and organizing SDS'ers? They wouldn't be put in prison. They'd be put under the prison.

Re: More On Cuba

adamnvillani — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 14:45:57 -0000

I'm not going to buy your argument either way, but if you make statements like "Cuba is far more democratic," could you at least back it up with some sort of evidence on the democratic bona fides of Cuba? There is plenty to criticize in the U.S., but I'm not aware of any amount of democracy in Cuba greater than zero.

Re: More On Cuba

Louis Proyect — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 11:51:22 -0000

Actually, judged by the same standards as other states, Cuba is far more democratic. Just look at all the power that George W. Bush assumed after 9/11 with the connivance of the Democrats. For that matter, FDR who is worshipped by all the liberals in the U.S., put Japanese-Americans in concentration camps in the U.S. All this was prompted by external threats, either real or imagined, that is dwarfed by what the U.S. represents to Cuba. Just a year or two ago, a Cuban-American who had blown up a Cuban civilian airliner was released from an American jail. What kind of statement does this make, especially in light of all the talk about Cuba being a rogue state? The one thing that Mr. Coates does not realize is that a multi-party democracy in Cuba would not last. It did not last in Allende's Chile or in Sandinista Nicaragua. The U.S. pours money into the counter-revolutionary parties that collude with the CIA--the end result being bloodbaths and economic ruin. Anyhow, I can understand why Mr. Coates would go on record as being to the right of Bobby Rush. His hero Barack Obama did the same thing when he ran against Rush in Chicago. Black people had enough common sense to vote for Rush.

Re: More On Cuba

DougEMI — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 09:06:39 -0000

There is a difference in raising taxes on an existing product and placing a tariff on a product that was up to this point, illegal. If you normalize trade with Cuba and then at a later date, jack up the tariff, I would imagine it would have more effect than just starting out with a tariff on day one of trade.

Hope you are right on the sugar imports, Obama has already changed on farm policy since the election. I agree that it is more political geography than ideology, which is why I hate that Iowa has such pull in the politcal process.

Re: More On Cuba

Ta-Nehisi Coates — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 07:28:48 -0000

This is what I'm not getting--Where did I defend the embargo? How is saying Castro is a despot, necessarily, a defense of the embargo? This conversation is incredible to me, in that it defies logic.

It's like I say, "Hey, it's raining in New York." And someone else says, "Yeah but it's sunny in L.A., so it can't possibly be raining in New York."

Re: More On Cuba

brucds — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 06:52:37 -0000

DinH - China didn't get to where it is today because it was excluded from trade with the US. I am aware that Brazil is a leader in sugar ethanol, but that doesn't mean that Caribbean countries could never compete if they had access to more investment in technology - Cuba is very likely capable of the technological developments necessary, given their biotch industry. And the corn ethanol industry should die. You're arguing from a static worldview - economically and politically. And pretty much missing the point of opening this door...

Re: More On Cuba

Calvin Jones and the 13th Apos — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 02:16:50 -0000

Bingo!! Personally, I don't know any lefty that is cheering on Castro. Just the opposite actually.

Re: More On Cuba

DaveinHackensack — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 01:05:22 -0000

I wouldn't expect the South Vietnamese to be grateful to us, since we bailed on them, but I do think that had we defended South Vietnam with air power against the North's invasion in '74-'75 (as we successfully did in '72), South Vietnam might be still be independent today -- and if it were, it would probably be prosperous and democratic by now, like South Korea is. Then again, despite their great fortune, I don't think the South Koreans are too grateful to us now either. That's not surprising though. There's an old saying: if you want someone to be your friend, don't do him a favor, ask him to do one for you. A lot of times people resent those who help them, because that help reminds them of their own weakness.

Re: More On Cuba

DaveinHackensack — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:58:54 -0000

"Yeah, let's tax the poor inhabitants of Cuba in order to compensate the relatively wealthy Miami Cubans."

You do realize, I hope, that the Cuban elite use trade with first world countries to exploit the hell out of poor Cubans. For example, the Cuban government bills foreign companies for labor and gives pennies of that money to the actual workers. That's another objection some people have to trade with Cuba, that it just enriches a few elites at the expense of everyone else.

"I'm not sure exactly what kind of economic system the Chinese have currently"

A capitalist one, for the most part, but without the same level of rule of law that first world countries have. Of the few remaining communist countries, Vietnam has been moving in a similar direction (although it's a decade or two behind China). Both China and Vietnam have attempted to liberalize their economies while keeping an autocratic political system. Cuba has largely resisted this trend toward economic liberalization, which is the main reason it's so poor.

"I've thought that a smart and mutually beneficial move regarding Cuba might be for US companies to invest in sugar ethanol development throughout the Carribean, including Cuba - link their main agricultural product to an alternative energy industry."

We import a small amount of sugar ethanol from some Caribbean or Central American countries, I think, but Brazil is light years ahead of everyone on this. They've genetically engineered sugar cane for their industry, worked out all sorts of efficiencies, etc. If we dropped our tariff on Brazilian sugar ethanol (which I think we should do) they'd put our corn ethanol producers out of business and no one in the Caribbean would be able to compete with them.

Re: More On Cuba

DaveinHackensack — Fri, 10 Apr 2009 00:46:26 -0000

Definitely a great film, and Forest Whitaker nailed the role. The kid who played the doctor was good too, showing the arc from young anti-establishment type infatuated with Amin as an anti-imperialist liberator to horrified realization of what the man really is.

Re: More On Cuba

zacksback — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 23:20:51 -0000

As T-N noted:

Either repressively ruling a country for half a century and then conspiring to pass power to your brother, is wrong or it isn't.

And you know what? Either an embargo is cutting a country off, or it isn't.

If some poor soul got his ass out of North Korea to the USA, he'd experience democracy and freedom. What he WOULDN'T be able to do is:

1) Phone home

2) Go home

3) Bring/send hard currency home

We never embargoed the Communist bloc, and they never let family left behind have any contact with those who escaped. With Cuba, we're playing both sides against the middle. Not only are we stupidly embargoing them, we're going along with Castro's wily plan of giving juuuust enough family contact to put a damper on outright rebellion.

I ask you T-N:

Could you live without democracy? Could you live without a secret ballot?

Could you live without Kenyatta and your son?

Yeah.

Re: More On Cuba

Kinowolf — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 22:10:45 -0000

Yeah, Castro is actually and extremely intelligent and charming m*fer. People get myopic and can't distance his personality from his actions.

The embargo is a bad strategy, but the Castro brothers' regime is still awful. We can reconcile those two points.

Re: More On Cuba

Methodgrind — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 21:53:53 -0000

I think there's a certain tendency to ascribe virtue to countries which America has mistreated in the past.

I remember a (balding radical) professor of mine insisting to a Vietnamese girl--whose father had actually been imprisoned by the communists--that the Americans were to blame for all such developments, because without their interference the Communists would never have been repressive.

Re: More On Cuba

Jordan — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 19:56:48 -0000

Awesome film. Forest Whitaker totally nailed the crazy. The bit where he's hosting an enormous dinner and announces "There won't be any people on the menu! Tonight." (or something to that effect) is perfect.

Re: More On Cuba

freddybak — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:12:08 -0000

It's only nice sounding to the extent that it is described by communists trying to get power to fools that can't think about the consequences of the ideology. Otherwise, it's pretty abhorrent sounding ideology as well as an abhorrent systm.

Re: More On Cuba

freddybak — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 17:09:21 -0000

Nicely put, Gram. I think that is essentially how a lot of left wing dictators get into power when they are essentially gangsters: they are charismatic guys who portray an image of strength against whatever The Man happens to be in a particular society. Then they get power and become much worse.

Re: More On Cuba

brucds — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:25:12 -0000

They just raised federal tax on cigars to finance SCHIP, and it's noticed among those who smoke them. I happen to be an occasional cigar smoker who doesn't care and thinks it's a false sense of victimization. I don't doubt at all that Obama will shift his stance on corn ethanol and sugar ethanol imports now that he's no longer dealing with an ag state electorate. This has had nothing to do with ideology and everything to do with regional politics. He'll probably let a bit of time pass, in order to ratioinalize it. As I said, I don't see why we couldn't keep raw sugar tariffs, if that's another political can of worms, but not tax ethanol imports - seems like a reasonable compromise that would benefit the poorer countries that source the sugar, because they'd be exporting a value-added product. Subsidiziing corn ethanol is just dumb, for a whole bunch of reasons.

Re: More On Cuba

DougEMI — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 16:03:34 -0000

The tariff on sugar ethanol unjustifiably high and Obama was always for the corn subsidy and ethanol tariff as a Senator, so I doubt it will change now.

I look at a tariff on Cuban cigars as something similar to a tax on reefer if it were legalized. It would have little effect on demand because the price has been so artificially high due to its illegality for years. So I think a tariff on cigars wouldn't even be noticed.

Re: More On Cuba

cooliehawk — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:46:28 -0000

The embargo is a stupid policy, but it's not what makes Cuba poor, and lifting it won't make Cuba prosperous.

What goods and services does the embargo deprive Cubans of that they couldn't buy from the other First World countries that Cuba trades with?

And what goods and services does Cuba produce that couldn't be sold to other countries?

All lifting the embargo means is that American firms can join the competitions to both sell Cuba stuff, and to buy stuff from the Cubans.

Which improves the lot of Cubans, but let's not kid ourselves about how much worse off the embargo makes the Cubans, or how much lifting it will improve Cuban lives.

Re: More On Cuba

brucds — Thu, 09 Apr 2009 15:40:52 -0000

I don't really have anything against some selective tariffs, for example tobacco products, with the money targeted to certain social offsets, but starting out with a general tariff that has a political purpose which the Cuban government would, with some justification, interpret as a direct affront isn't a good idea. The sugar thing is interesting - we could actually retain a protective tariff on sugar imports (not saying that's a good thing, but conceding it as a hypothetical) and drop it on imported sugar ethanol. If there's any rationale for protecting our raw sugar industry, it would remain in place, but it would encourage "good"ethanol imports (as opposed to the idiocy of corn ethanol) as well as the development of an industrial capacity in the country of origin, which helps move them forward from the traditional cheap raw ag export model.