A recent CIA report claims that Cuban President Fidel Castro may suffer from Parkinson's disease, which he denies. Whether or not he is currently ill, he is 79 years old, and has a limited number of years left as Cuba's leader. If he were to pass away in the near future his probable immediate successor would be his brother, 74-year old Defense Minister Raul Castro. Since Raul is no spring chicken, a second succession crisis may occur soon enough. What are your predictions for Cuba after Castro? Tell us what you think!
Wednesday, November 23, 2005
Weekly Debate: What next after Castro?
A recent CIA report claims that Cuban President Fidel Castro may suffer from Parkinson's disease, which he denies. Whether or not he is currently ill, he is 79 years old, and has a limited number of years left as Cuba's leader. If he were to pass away in the near future his probable immediate successor would be his brother, 74-year old Defense Minister Raul Castro. Since Raul is no spring chicken, a second succession crisis may occur soon enough. What are your predictions for Cuba after Castro? Tell us what you think!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
Logic dictates that the only reasonable opinion is what do the Cuban people want?
The U.S. State dept. has admitted that their wish is to re-take the island nation and return it to banana republic status under U.S. corporate control. Is that what Cubanos within Cuba would like? It depends.
The majority of Cubans I have known and spoken with say they want respectful relatons with other countries, not another conqueror professing friendship but offering no alternatives that challenge America monopoly. The history of Cuba has been one of slavery, genocide and control by European imperialists. While there is plenty that can be said against Dr. Castro, there are equally valid reasons for the Cuban system to continue.
I would hope that the international community would ensure the viability of Cuban national sovereignty but after 40 years of illegal U.S. imposed economic sanctions, I doubt that any actions will be taken to enforce the recognition of Cuban independence.
Yes, Cuba needs change. But under Cuban direction, not American business and territorial interests.
The best thing would be for monitored elections to take place. Maybe sponsored by the EU? Raul Castro is 74 freakin years old, he can't last that long without losing full mental capacity.
I once had my cable guy, a Cuban Marielito, tell me that once Fidel dies, his brother Raul would take over. it would be a Castro dynasty, if you will.
As for the US taking Cuba as their personal little garden, that won't happen easily, unless Cuba does not have anyone who will step up to the plate once Castro is gone. I also doubt highly that Bush will turn his attention away from his war to sieze Cuba. Maybe Condi will, but Condi doesn't constitute a takeover in any way.
I HOPE that there will be elections and Cubans will be able to show their disdain for La Revolucion and vote any remnants of it out of power in favor of democracy, and I do not mean the US version of democracy.
Reestablishing ties with the US will be difficult, but there are new powers on the horizon, and by the time Cubans are ready to reclaim Cuba, perhaps the US will no longer be necessary for survival.
If the United States even thinks about imposing its will on Cuba, other than encouraging elections, I will be quite angry. As a true patriot, I will go out and protest and join marches the way I did just before we invaded Iraq. Just the thought makes me shudder.
My view of the situation is that Cuba will remain under the dark hand of communism.
With Venezuela as the main supplier of dollars and Oil to Fidel's Cuban Revolutionary machine, it seems to me that the plans after Fidel are already set.
Venezuela and Cuba have signed a variety of pacts unifying both of the judicial branches and working together.
Venezuelans are also allowed to travel to Cuba and spend Bolivares in Cuba.
Both the Cuban and Venezuelan government are already acting like one.
In many occasions they have referred to Hugo Chavez as also the other President of Cuba and Fidel has been regarded the same way in some Venezuelan circles.
Cuban advisors and security aparatus already protect Hugo Chavez and provide his guidelines for his foreign and domestic policy.
More of the latest legislation that Chavez has promoted is at the image of the events that happened around the Cuban Revolution.
With Chavez in power you can be sure that the situation in Cuba will always remain the same, unless there is a foreign intervention in both countries.
Yeah, but "Frederick Pohl," this is the very same rationale the Bush crimminal conspiracy is using to justify their invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan. Do you really see anything good happening there? All I see are Iraqi citizens burned to a heap by "Willie Pete" and American troops dying in support of Halliburton's nine-plus billion profits.
Cubans have the right to self-determination as recognised by the United Nations charter as well as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). It is really not up to the U.S. or any other foreign body to decide where Cuba goes. This stands before Castro and after the current regime stands down.
And "Mariposa," as far as many Cubanos are concerned, Cuba is in Cuban hands, something unheard of until Castro took power. Anyone who is looking back nostalgically at the Batisa regime and its application of racial apartheid in education, churches and beaches, U.S. government and Mafia monopoly over Cuban lands and industries and foreign control over Cuban leaders isn't looking at the whole picture.
It is very easy, simplistic and tempting to demand that Dr. Castro step down and open up the country to foreign ideas. But in light of the historical fact that Cuba is indeed sovereign under Castro and unlike his nearest neighbour addresses social justice issues whereas America only offers lip service, this leader and his people deserve much more respect than they recieve.
As for the methods the Cuban government uses to surpress dissent, take a good look at the entity they are facing and the methods they use to destabilise other nations. (Think Iran, Vietnam, Panama, Haiti, etc.)
With Cuba in such a position of strategic and military disadvantage and with U.S. operatives within the society working to bring down the government, I wonder as has the U.N., what country would not actively resist such intervention and in the midst of such defenses, overstep the line between security and free expression. I am of the opinion that this dynamic of imperialist and colonial intervention and defensive paranoia is something that should be at the forefront of any discussion on the Cuabn issue.
Cuba will move towards a democracy, but it will be more on a European model.
While the U.S. has maintained a Cold War style embargo, European nations (and Canada) have invested a lot of their time, money, and goodwill in the island, and now have significant influence. They have built businesses, hotels and created contacts all over Cuba. Tourists from France, Italy, Germany and other European nations vacation in Cuba as well, so that Cubans are used to doing business with them.
To believe that the U.S., after almost fifty years of an embargo and being the 'enemy' can somehow deal ourselves into the game at the end is delusional. Cuba will move closer to the west. But it will be Western Europe.
It would be foolish to predict what will happen post-Castro, simply because he has been in power for so long (isn't he the world's longest serving ruler/head of state now?) and any nation has problems at such a handover of power. I hope the US doesn't respond as it has in Iraq; by demanding/enforcing the introduction of a 'democracy' where the only true choice is agree with Bush or get blown up ('Communist' Cuba is not the only country with a passion for stifling dissent). We can only hope that whatever happens does not drag the country back to the state it was in under Batista, as that would only serve American interests, not Cuban ones... whatever one may think about Castro it is surely indisputable that he has done more for the Cuban people than his predecessor ever even attempted.
frederick pohl:
First of all, the relationship between Chavez and Castro is close, but not to the point of a merger.
Second, what have you got against Chavez? He was elected in a democratic election, and then two years ago, won an overwhelming majority (I think 58%-42% qualifies, when in the US we haven't seen a President win that kind of margin in over 20 years) in what amounted to a recall election, and which was certified as a fair election by international observers. As long as the people in Venezuela continue to vote for him, then how is he somehow less legitimate than any other democratically elected leader? Yes, he has become a bit more authoritarian, but for that matter so has our government (what else would you call the Patriot Act and the passport restrictions we will face by 2008 in just going to Canada to buy prescription pills?)
And frankly, his provision of foreign aid to poor people in Massachusetts today was a very humane gesture. Our government isn't taking care of them, and I am sure that if they stay warm this winter, they won't complain no matter who is paying for the heating fuel.
Castro is a different story, having come to power by force and not an election, but I think you overstate the closeness of the two countries (the US is close to England, but no one is suggesting that we should start printing the queen's portrait on our money, and I don't think Venezuela will start printing Castro on their money either). Yes, Venezuelans travel and spend Bolivares in Cuba, but what is so novel about this? As I pointed out in my previous post, people from many countries travel and spend money there. Not Americans, and we are paying the price daily as Cuba (not Castro, but the Cuba of its residents) drifts farther and farther away from the US.
Eli Blake:
I must agree with your points about Chavez, and the closeness between Venezuela and Cuba. It's hardly surprising to see Cuba develop such close economic and political ties with the likes of Venezuela as Cuba is utterly excluded from any kind of relationship with the main regional and world power (the USA). It is only natural that they will look elsewhere for allies.
Frederick Pohl:
You say that Cuba's future is sealed by the fact that Chavez's government is such a big contributor of oil and dollars, does this mean that the next USA administration will be chosen by the Saudis and Chinese since they bankroll America in the same way?
MY MAN, ANGRYMAN WRITES: (1) "While there is plenty that can be said against Dr. Castro, there are equally valid reasons for the Cuban system to continue."
AND
(2) "Yes, Cuba needs change. But under Cuban direction, not American business and territorial interests."
COMMENT: Pray thee, sir, enlighten us as with a just a couple of "equally valid reasons for the Cuban system to continue." Except for the Cuban bureaucrats and others belonging to in the elitist communist order, I doubt the Cuban poor who have, just as in all communist regimes, borne the brunt of economic and political oppression that comes with denying individual rights and creativity, would cheerfully opt to submit to another generation of the same-oh, same-oh.
Surprisingly, I agree with MY MAN'S PC second statement--let the Cubans choose their own destiny and, as is likely, if they see the benefits of having the U.S. as its main trading partner and hemispheric benefactor, then I say to all wannabe radical social engineers of the Left and the Right, 'KEEP YOUR FREEGING HANDS OFF.'
Well, yes, it is true that Cubans have their country in their hands to a greater extent than when Batista was in power. But it could also be argued that Cuba was handed over from batista/USA to Castro, and it seems to me that the people hardly got a word in edgewise.
I also add that a Cuba from which people have to flee in boats and rafts can hardly be considered "in Cuban hands".
I don't know that much about R. Castro. I sure hope that if he's the successor the embargo will be gradually relaxed. I really do think that the embargo has lasted so long more out of animosity towards Fidel and his vocal opposition to US influence in the hemisphere. It really isn't because Cuba is a Communist country, because (ahem) we have no problems trading with China, which is at least still Communist on paper.
Hi Taylor, I just wanted to let you know, in case you didn't know already, that at the UN, all Member States, save for the US, Palau and Israel (surprise surprise) vote against the embargo against Cuba every year at the General Assembly, and some have vowed to do this until the US gets off its moral highhorse. It has lasted for so long because the US is arrogant in their foreign policy, and the more Castro is outspoken against it, the longer they keep the embargo going.
Thanks Mariposa! I saw this year's vote make headlines, but I didn't realize it was a yearly excercise. And we wonder why we anger the rest of the world!
The way I see it is this:
I dont think it should be the US the country to carry all the burden of liberating these places, but someone has to step up and help the opressed. And it is usually the strongest with a strong set convictions and way of being.
We live in a planet all together and I dont feel Country borders should allow an individual to treat a country like their personal farm.
If there are people in this World that have the power to do something about it, It should not be a matter of sovereignty. All the citizens in the Wold deserve the chance.
I do see the point that we might not have anything to gain for the present moment. Not financially and specially not in military casualties. I will agree with everyone with that.
May be the new Multinational Force being created for Latin America is an options.
If we allow these two nations within the next 50 years their threat will be major as their military policy has the US as their enemy
Link: http://militarvenezuela2005.blogspot.com/
You asked for a couple "Grant," here are two:
One, Unlike the U.S., the Cuban human services attitude is, "If people need help, they should get it." In this country education, medical care, housing and common decency are considered cash-driven material and social commodities, not life sustaining and respectful necessities. In Cuba quality of life is a human right. And I do make a distinction between its political activites to defend itself from internal as well as external aggressions. Also, I accept that in such machinations there are and will be abuses, just like it is with the United States.
Two, on principle the current Cuban system has done something no other government in that country has managed to do, retain their independence. The U.S. is in no moral position to say how, when or in which direction the Cuban national destiny should go. Cuba is not the property of the United States all past and current claims to the contrary.
Whatever socio-politcal or economic system Cuba sees fit to use is up to its population, not Wall Street investors. Latin America is little more than producton fodder for North American multinationaist and neo-liberal interests in the estimation of many oppossed to the Castro government. They prefer a system no unlike what NAFTA and GATT have brought to Mexico.
On the moral front you can raise the principle of social and political freedoms but, these same enitites approve of commerce with Saudi Arabia, Nigeria, Sudan, China, Vietnam and I could easily go on. All nations with horrible human rights records.
Somewhat if not entirely hypocritical would not one say?
Taylor:
I think one reason we have trade with China and not Cuba has to do with the relative sizes of the two countries and corresponding economic opportunity.
It has certainly been shown that isolating a regime such as Cuba, North Korea or Iran helps, not hinders, the dictators there maintain power (they have a built in excuse for everything they want to do).
On the other hand, there is no question about why we maintain the economic blockade on Cuba. The Cuban exile community is a key Republican leaning bloc in a Democratic part of a swing state (with 27 electoral votes). There is no question at all that the Elian Gonzalez raid motivated them to all come out and vote Republican in 2000, and as we well know, Bush won the Presidency that year by 537 votes. The lesson has not been lost, and I doubt if anyone will risk trying to open trade with Cuba.
Which is a shame, since as I said n the first post above, it is the Europeans, not the Americans who will be in a position to benefit when (not if, but when) Cuba eventually does develop a market economy. In fact, our best hope to get into Cuba when this happens might be to ride the coattails of the Canadians (another major investor in Cuba) and maybe offer them entry into NAFTA or something like that.
I see valid points in everyones sides. It's a complicated issue.
Above all I would like to THANK everyone for the civil debate we have had about the subject.
// unlike my experience has been while giving my two cents to an article written on the Liberal Patriot BLog.
http://theliberalpatriot.blogspot.com/2005/11/hugo-chavez-cares-about-americans-at.html
The three individuals from there, let their emotions have the best of them. And the best they can do it's come out with insults.
--
I'll second the sentiment from Fr. Pohl.... its nice to read and contribute to something where people don't act like 3 year olds when they disagree... the UN is good at enough at doing that the blogsphere should aspire to better ;-j
Post-Fidel, Cuba could change, though there'sn't going to be anything dramatic. What will be most missing is Fidel's charisma. It may not mean much to Americans or to many citizens of other countries. But to Cubans, I am told, it means a lot. So, minus that, there will be a sort of vacuum.
It will be very unwise on part of America to rush into any such vacuum that may be created. Let Cuba evolve itself. After all, Cubans are the best judge of their own future, is it not? May be Cuba doesn't have a democracy, but people of many countries that don't have democracy, have found means to make their voices heard.
Sent in by email:
Supposedly, the obvious successor is his brother, but according to
what intelligence? And howfirm is it? Do we know how the Cubans feel or think of Raúl Castro? Then, there's the members of the Politburo and their thoughts on a successor. Is one to assume that there's no opposition to R.C. or that someone else isn't ready to step up? The above are questions, of course, and that's what I have to offer. Ask any field anthropologist, informants usually say what their questioners want to hear. Regarding predictions, it's a crap shoot. Face it, we know precious little about what goes on there.
-From 'someone who's been to Cuba'
Post a Comment