Fidel Castro will celebrate his 79th birthday in August. His brouther Raúl is supposed to replace him as President. But Raúl is not young either. So what is the perspective for Cuba, the country with the best health care system of any developing country? Another Haiti, another Puerto Rico, another Venzuela?
Back to Main
May 22, 2005
What Will Follow Fidel?
Comments
The Jeb Bush/Condoleeza Rice administration will liberate Cuba.
Posted by: slothrop | May 22 2005 20:19 utc | 1
oh, Otto Reich will be in charge of Cuban “reconstruction.”
Posted by: slothrop | May 22 2005 20:28 utc | 2
so strange this post b because i was just watching a cd document here on che guevara – produced by a publishing house in paris some time ago but came past a quote by che guevara – “on any day i would rather be an illiterated indian than an american billionaire”
i worry for cuba – worry for this fragile nation that has done so much good. she has been a beacon for latin america indeed for the whole third world & her example of refusing to bow before the yankee empire is something of wonder
she has survived very delicately the blockades against her & she is starting to see friends arrive in power all over latin america
(incidentally, there is a very good article exposing the reporters sans frontieres campaign led by robert menard against cuba – in this weeks counterpunch m mentioning the financial aid it has received from cia think tanks & florida bandits)
because of the blockade she has developed so unnaturally & it is not just to judge her without that being a defining context – but the basic life in health education & security outpasses any other latin american nation & most of the americas
i know in my heart if she was attacked i would do all in my power to aid her, physically
to see everything she has built destroyed by the pornographers of miami would break any heart but i have faith in the cuban people to defend themselves against physical attack – she has only to hold on for a small moment & the entirety of latin america will be with her
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 22 2005 21:18 utc | 3
With the the help of the Florida Cuban liberationists, World Bank, and a few other financiers of the same caliber, Cuba will become once again what it was in the Machado-Batista era–the US winter playground. Throw in baby-boomer chic retirement area, and you’ve got it. Probably have a very interesting version of democratic government, too.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 23 2005 1:20 utc | 4
You could think Columbus Bizarro circa 2005 also, bringing casinos, clubs, and the good life, I guess.
And these atheistic communists need saving. Falwell and Robertson pack their suitcases instead of the Jesuits.
Sad to think about, but it will happen.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 23 2005 1:42 utc | 5
“i worry for cuba – worry for this fragile nation that has done so much good. she has been a beacon for latin america indeed for the whole third world & her example of refusing to bow before the yankee empire is something of wonder”
This is parody, right?
Posted by: Tom DC/VA | May 23 2005 2:11 utc | 6
It appears, from the last comment,
that criminal interlopers and capitalist jokesters have penetrated the Lair of the Socialist Beast.
This perfidy has to be rooted out and silenced.
Posted by: L. Beria | May 23 2005 2:44 utc | 7
Castro’s done something unheard of: he’s kept his country intact for almost fifty years, and he’s endowed it with the best health-care system in the hemisphere and a literacy rate of close to 100%. This, in my view, is what civilization is all about–in its formative stages, anyway. And if it’s really taken hold–even at fifty years a big “if”–then there’s no reason to suppose that it couldn’t have a profound effect on the United States, after the seige has been lifted and the gangsters are sent back in. Because the traffic goes both ways, despite the dissymetry of the players. It would be fun to see the Miami Cubans take over Florida and turn it into a somewhat pale version of Castro’s Cuba, especially where schooling and health-care is concerned. Stranger things have happened.
Posted by: alabama | May 23 2005 3:09 utc | 9
I have no idea who will take over after Fidel is dead. I don’t imagine people there want the Miami Cubans to take them over, but I could be wrong.
When I lived in Miami, there were all sorts of Cuban-American guys who were not born there, never visited there, and yet they trained as a “militia” to always be ready to go after Fidel. Most of them either wore thick glasses or were obese. Other Cuban-Americans I knew were just happy to live their lives and of course wanted Fidel gone, but they weren’t going to invade anyone.
When Fidel dumped the Mariolitos on Florida, I knew a guy who was murdered by one of them. The emnity goes both ways, and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a waste. America should have Cuba as a trading partner. The reason we don’t is because of the votes from those obese guys in thick glasses who train for the militia, and the women who love them.
I read an interesting article in Harper’s, I think, about Cuba’s use of sustainable agriculture after they got cut off from Soviet funding after the fall of the USSR. I knew some of this before, because some people in my town have gone there to share info on sustainability.
anyway, Cuba’s ag. was forced to change, in the same way that America’s might be forced to change without oil for agri-biz. They are learning how to grow food in ways that do not deplete the soil, and that work in the ways that local farming does here.
Cuba also, as far as I know, is not using any GM seeds.
Who knows, after Fidel dies, maybe they’ll have an election and decide to be a social democracy and I’ll move there…and not to the Gitmo part.
I’ve never been there and would like to see it for myself.
rgiap- It is hard for lots of people (me included) to have an all-or-nothing view of political/economic systems. I realize your experiences are far different than many other people who share this site, and they should realize this too. Your faith in marxist philosophy, as opposed to its practice in nearly every place I can think of, would be nearly impossible to argue in a public forum here.
I guess I tend toward the “practical” and think that any system of govt and economics, or any philosophy of history will be abused by those in power, and for that reason, no system works…without forces to counter those abuses. You see this in capitalism as well. You can see this in spades in capitalism in this country right now.
Many, many Americans are also ideologues about their country, but they don’t know it. But the belief still stands here that we are the country that has been a beacon of freedom for the world, and an example, and that we’re “the good guys.”
Obviously there is much history to counter this view, but for the moment, and who knows about the future, capitalism has not imploded from the pressure brought on the middle and lower classes as the Bushistas rape and plunder the national treasury.
Again, I guess I tend toward a little cynical realism and do not think any nation is good. All are just working for their (or their rulers’) benefit…and without much care for whose expense.
Even so, you cannot find many here who would seriously see any sort of communist or solely socialist economic system as workable in any way, and when or if the shit hits the American economic fan, who knows who will get splattered with the blame.
and, btw, I am assuming De is on an extended vacation after the end of the semester. has anyone heard from her?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 23 2005 3:44 utc | 10
I have no idea who will take over after Fidel is dead. I don’t imagine people there want the Miami Cubans to take them over, but I could be wrong.
When I lived in Miami, there were all sorts of Cuban-American guys who were not born there, never visited there, and yet they trained as a “militia” to always be ready to go after Fidel. Most of them either wore thick glasses or were obese. Other Cuban-Americans I knew were just happy to live their lives and of course wanted Fidel gone, but they weren’t going to invade anyone.
When Fidel dumped the Mariolitos on Florida, I knew a guy who was murdered by one of them. The emnity goes both ways, and, as far as I’m concerned, it’s a waste. America should have Cuba as a trading partner. The reason we don’t is because of the votes from those obese guys in thick glasses who train for the militia, and the women who love them.
I read an interesting article in Harper’s, I think, about Cuba’s use of sustainable agriculture after they got cut off from Soviet funding after the fall of the USSR. I knew some of this before, because some people in my town have gone there to share info on sustainability.
anyway, Cuba’s ag. was forced to change, in the same way that America’s might be forced to change without oil for agri-biz. They are learning how to grow food in ways that do not deplete the soil, and that work in the ways that local farming does here.
Cuba also, as far as I know, is not using any GM seeds.
Who knows, after Fidel dies, maybe they’ll have an election and decide to be a social democracy and I’ll move there…and not to the Gitmo part.
I’ve never been there and would like to see it for myself.
rgiap- It is hard for lots of people (me included) to have an all-or-nothing view of political/economic systems. I realize your experiences are far different than many other people who share this site, and they should realize this too. Your faith in marxist philosophy, as opposed to its practice in nearly every place I can think of, would be nearly impossible to argue in a public forum here.
I guess I tend toward the “practical” and think that any system of govt and economics, or any philosophy of history will be abused by those in power, and for that reason, no system works…without forces to counter those abuses. You see this in capitalism as well. You can see this in spades in capitalism in this country right now.
Many, many Americans are also ideologues about their country, but they don’t know it. But the belief still stands here that we are the country that has been a beacon of freedom for the world, and an example, and that we’re “the good guys.”
Obviously there is much history to counter this view, but for the moment, and who knows about the future, capitalism has not imploded from the pressure brought on the middle and lower classes as the Bushistas rape and plunder the national treasury.
Again, I guess I tend toward a little cynical realism and do not think any nation is good. All are just working for their (or their rulers’) benefit…and without much care for whose expense.
Even so, you cannot find many here who would seriously see any sort of communist or solely socialist economic system as workable in any way, and when or if the shit hits the American economic fan, who knows who will get splattered with the blame.
and, btw, I am assuming De is on an extended vacation after the end of the semester. has anyone heard from her?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 23 2005 3:45 utc | 11
okay, I got a notice that my post didn’t go through, but it did. anyone want to get rid of door number 2?
Posted by: fauxreal | May 23 2005 3:46 utc | 12
Sustainable ag in Cuba, cool. Few years back, on a trip to Jamaica, I remember thinking that the tropical climate made it easy to grow enough food to feed everyone, but that they were not growing anything particularly well. The cattle were in bad shape, wandering around eating trash–most of the beef was imported. Plenty of fish, chicken, pork, amazing fruits and vegetables.
De popped in over on the Open Thread.
Posted by: catlady | May 23 2005 4:03 utc | 13
i have no idea who will follow fidel, but for the sake of name-dropping, lets just say Posada Carriles.
what seems to be more clear is that the usgov is putting things in place to take over the place. a likely scenario in post-castro cuba is post-soviet russia, perhaps with elements of post-saddam iraq. the russians had their national wealth siphoned off with help from criminal elements who turned out to be citizens of a certain shitty little country which we dare not name. today, the median life expectancy in russia is said to have fallen back to 65 years, prostitution is a viable and accepted career even for postgrad trainees, alcoholism is rampant, western enterprises have free hand to do whatever.
think of cuba becoming monsanto-land, where instead of sustainable agriculture farmers will have to buy their terminator-enhanced seeds from monsanto every year, think industrialized farming with indentured workers instead of the coops which exist now, think mc-donalds land, a massive spread of obesity and other american illnesses like cancer, depression and diabetes, think two or three US bases besides gitmo to “protect democracy”, think flat tax, think sweatshops instead of coops, think no duties, and, of course, be very sure that the first puppet taking over after fidel will ask the world bank for credits which will indebt the country beyond anything they could reasonably pay back in 100 years, the credit money disappearing who knows where.
Posted by: name | May 23 2005 5:18 utc | 14
catlady- the strange thing about tropical land is that the dirt isn’t always so good. because of the tropical climate, things decompose quickly and soil nutrients can be depleted…as well as the soil itself.
though it would seem that tropical/rainforest sorts of land would be great for farming, in fact, from what I’ve heard, they are much more fragile.
obviously there are indigenous plants that really take hold (as in roots) in the available soil, like plantains and bananas and avocados…but those are all trees, not crops with an annual life cycle.
I’ve wondered if raised beds couldn’t help create a way to produce more food (and in less space).
The “new” Cuban system is much more labor intensive, initially because they couldn’t get parts of fix their tractors, and then because they started working on ways to make the soil better…crops to improve soil, fix nutrients, microbes to encourage this process…
Since Fidel has so much power, he should trade with European nations for alternative energy technology in return for more concessions for all those hotels I hear the Europeans have built, looking to a future when they can sell them at a much higher price to Americans.
Posted by: fauxreal | May 23 2005 5:22 utc | 15
that was lovely, rgiap.
canuckleheads have long enjoyed vacationing in cuba. we’re just a bunch of commies anyway with all that healthcare and such.;-)
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 23 2005 6:36 utc | 16
Yeah, Cuba is great and wonderful, provided that you are willing to keep your sexuality, your religious beliefs and your political beliefs to yourself. Just because Castro is better than Pinochet or Noriega or Peron does not mean that he is some sort of saint. He is a dictator, and as such, he helps some people and hurts others. And the two groups are not necessarily the dispossesed and the wealthy, respectively. Any government that sends people into exile in order to maintain its control is not to be fully trusted (hence problem #202220 with the US excersising extraordinary rendition).
Would anyone here actually prefer living in Cuba over living in Costa Rica?
Posted by: bittergradstudent | May 23 2005 8:03 utc | 17
Almost nobody here considers Castro a saint. Cuba does not deserve the crap that the US has piled on it for decades now. Maybe in a less paranoid Cuba things would have been better. Maybe if the US wasn’t constantly encouraging opposition and constantly threatening anyone who does business with Cuba, Castro might be a little less jumpy. Who knows?
That his is better than Pinochet of Noriega or Peron speaks volumes about the priorities of the US doesn’t it? Cuba isn’t great and wonderful, but it has both admirable and deplorable aspects. It seems that pointing that out isn’t acceptable to many in the US.
No Tom DC/VA, this isn’t parody. The bullshit of Cuba as little Satan is the fucking parody. The bullshit of the mighty US being so fucking vicious to a few commies is the bloody parody. But the US is a country that seems to excel at parody.
(I know, don’t feed the trolls. Sorry.)
thank you colman
& fauxreal – it is not a case of of defending these countries or systems, right or wrong. i simply refuse to pass over in silence ill-informed anti marxist hysteria & even sillier attacks on the countries we dearly need to understand
with cuba tho – i love her – so obvioussly there is no irony – but there are moments there – the process of the ochoa’s – that have caused great sadness – i think even for the cubans themselves. fidel is not pol pot. he is one in a long tradition of latin americans who obvioussly care deeply about their people & nation like jose marti & bolivar
for decades there has simply been no comparison to any other society in matin america – cuba was ahead in so many important questions but especially that of health & education
cuba will survive fidel but she will always be in his debt as any of us is in the debt of el che
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 10:28 utc | 19
rgiap with all my being i fear for cuba when castro dies,the us i fear will treat it as an economic feeding ground driven by greed.
Posted by: onzaga | May 23 2005 11:19 utc | 20
@Onzaga
Is there any place the us doesn’t treat as an economic feeding ground driven by greed?
Posted by: Anonymous | May 23 2005 11:28 utc | 21
bittergraduate student, wouldn’t the question more fairly be, “would anyone here prefer living in Castro Cuba over living in Batista Cuba”? That’s a question Miami Cubans have trouble with. It’s a hard question for a gringo to answer honestly, or at least clearly, and harder still for Miami Cubans. Castro did what was necessary, and possible, for bringing Cuban peasants into civiiization, and by all reports he achieved this. The Mariel boat-lift makes sense in this context: given the pressures of the embargo, Castro had to lower the population of high-maintenance Cubans without resorting to extermination. For he has never been a killer of his own people. Can we Americans say the same about ourselves? And will we shed Cuban blood when we invade the place?
Posted by: alabama | May 23 2005 11:39 utc | 22
The plans for Cuba have already been drawn up and have been for a long time. I was told this many times by the Cuban man that I worked for over several years. The people that suffer under Castro will continue to suffer under the power brokers that will come to gobble up the new American vacation land with dollar signs in their eyes. As my 95-year-old friend says, “Man is a son of a bitch.”
Posted by: aw | May 23 2005 11:45 utc | 23
Sadly, the policies enacted against Cuba are likely to be driven, at least in the first years/decades, by pure malice and revenge for nothing more than ‘continual defiance’ …
The people of Cuba have managed to survive as the little mouse giving the ‘finger’ to the giant American Eagle … when the Eagle finally manages to get it’s talons on the mouse, it’ll tear it to shreds and gorge on the entrails … reason be damned, the Eagles spite must be sated …
Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 12:21 utc | 24
Malice as revenge for defiance… doesn’t that sound like US policy vis a vis Iran? Or Iraq?
The Iranian authorities raped and murdered a middle-aged woman who like me had Canadian citizenship. I want somebody to pay for that. But basing a decades-long hostility against a whole country on such incidents, or Fidel’s persecution of gays, wreaks a terrible price, too.
Posted by: sm | May 23 2005 13:43 utc | 25
sm, I’d like to know more about Fidel’s persecution of gays. Yes, he imposed a severe quarantine on AIDS victims, and this can be counted, I’m sure, as persecution of gays (but I’d also like to know more about the incidence of AIDS in Cuba). aw and Outraged: I take it as a given that Castro never expected anything less from the Americans, and so the question, at least for me, turns on whether he’s managed to prepare Cubans for their persecution at American hands. The only “weapon” at his disposal has been the systematic creation of universal literacy and universal health care. How this legacy might survive is something I wonder about. That it can survive is something I choose to believe.
Posted by: alabama | May 23 2005 14:08 utc | 26
@sm
What about the doctrine of proportional response ?
In seeking justice punish the perpetrators, not an entire country or people for the actions of a few.
That’s the twisted logic that the Nazi’s used in liquidating Lidice in Czechoslovakia during WWII and in recent times similarly the US forces against the citizens of Falluja in Iraq.
Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 14:15 utc | 27
@Alabama
I also choose to believe so.
Unfortunately it is the very nature of the dominant leadership of Castro within an authoritarian regime and structure, however benign, that almost ensures implosion politically, and a strugle for power, upon his demise. A system largely forced upon them as a survival mechanism against sustained exterior threat/attack.
One can but hope for the Cubans themselves there are suitably placed people of principle and moral worth who may be able to create some stability out of the inevitable chaos of such an event whilst under siege and subjected to direct active interference from abroad.
Posted by: Outraged | May 23 2005 14:26 utc | 28
Colman: by explicitly bringing up Pinochet and Noriega, I was clearly criticizing US policy in Latin America, which is clearly extremely fucked up, and has always been fucked up. The anti-Castro people in the US are way over the top. And clearly, the US embargo serves no purpose whatsoever. But calling Castro “a shining light for latin america”, as was done upthread, is completely rediculous. Castro is an incredibly mixed bag, and the positive cannot be extracted from the negative.
alabama: I wouldn’t necessarily say that my question should be that, but that is an interesting question in its own right. What I was trying to counter was the claim that fidelismo is the best that latinamerica can do, of which I believe that CR is a decent counterexample. Whether or not Castro has improved Cuba during his reign is a different question, one that I don’t think that I am equipped to answer, though, once again, he accomplished his goals partially by exiling ‘undesirable’ Cubans–with those that remained, he did a good job of creating well distributed physical benefits for his entire nation, something that Batista clearly did not do. But displacing whole segments of the population is a pretty severe thing to do. The US is hardly blameless, and if this thread was about how great the US was, I would be quickly bringing up the Trail of Tears and the Japanese internments, and the myriad other injustices that people conveniently forget. But we are talking about Castro, and thus, I am talking about Castro. Also, I don’t think he’s been extremely concerned about the many people that have died on homemade barges between Florida and Cuba.
Posted by: bittergradstudent | May 23 2005 14:33 utc | 29
I’ve never been in Cuba but some internet friends have and they loved the place all tho yes they were talking about visible poverty…but then again poverty is easy to notice in Australia (or USA or Europe) too if you observe very closely…but it’s not that visible and not that spread I admit.
I have lived in the (economic and social) system based on Marxism (or they told us so). I was young and naïve and I hated it at the time. I admit I had idealistic view of capitalism all tho it was mostly based on my visits to Western Europe (Sweden was my ideal and it was a time of U. Palme long governing).
To make a long story short having lived in Western (America alike but still much more human all tho not for long) society my idealistic view has been shredded and really I am finding my self so far on the left in my political view that it’s not funny at all. I never in my life was this much on the left.
Honestly I agree with fauxreal on all most everything.
I am not optimistic about Cuba ( one way or another) and as much as I wouldn’t like to see Americans there ( or anywhere for that matter) I have not any sympathies for the regime where presidents are for life and where their brothers, sons or other relatives automatically are in title to replace them like they are royalties. To be honest I hate it and there is nothing good to come from it in my view.
We in ex –YU had perfect health and education system for 50 years…but it wasn’t enough.
Quote:
I guess I tend toward the “practical” and think that any system of govt and economics, or any philosophy of history will be abused by those in power, and for that reason, no system works…without forces to counter those abuses.
Right so! But things are really not great at the moment and I am interested very much as well as scared to see where the hell they are going.
Today conservatives in Germany won and triggered tought of a early election as I understand it:
EARLY GERMAN ELECTION LIKELY
Interesting times we are living in. We must be cursed, ha-ha.
Posted by: vbo | May 23 2005 14:39 utc | 30
bittergradstudent- costa rica ain’t what it used to be, thanks to gringos like this profiteer
Posted by: b real | May 23 2005 15:00 utc | 31
Time share condos. Lots and lots of time share condos.
Casinos.
More NYT Travel page coverage.
Better Spanish.
Miami south.
Posted by: razor | May 23 2005 19:54 utc | 32
Examination of Castro is so contentious, in the U.S. at any rate, it’s difficult to know what believe about Castro.
For example, an American Experience PBS documentary says that on Oct. 27, 1961, “Castro writes a letter to Khrushchev urging him to use nuclear weapons and sacrifice Cuba if necessary.” I’ve heard this numerous times before, the insinuation Castro is/was a madman. Yet little mention is made of the Oct. 31 letter from Castro to Khrushchev:
Countless Cubans and Soviets who were willing to die with supreme dignity shed tears upon learning about the surprising, sudden and practically unconditional decision to withdraw the weapons.
Perhaps you don’t know the degree to which the Cuban people were ready to carry out its duty to the nation and humanity.
I realized when I wrote them that the words contained in my letter could be misinterpreted by you and that was what happened – perhaps because you didn’t read them carefully, perhaps because of the translation, perhaps because I meant to say so much in too few lines. However, I didn’t hesitate to do it. Do you believe, Comrade Khrushchev, that we were selfishly thinking of ourselves, of our generous people willing to sacrifice themselves, and not in an unconscious manner but fully aware of the risk they ran?
No, Comrade Khrushchev. Few times in history, and it could even be said that never before – because no people had ever faced such a tremendous danger – was a people so willing to fight and die with such a universal sense of duty.
We knew – and do not presume that we ignored it, as you insinuate in your letter – that we would have been annihilated in the event of nuclear war. However, that didn’t prompt us to ask you to withdraw the missiles, that didn’t prompt us to ask you to yield. Do you believe that we wanted war? But how could we prevent it if the invasion finally took place? The fact is that this event was possible, that imperialism was obstructing every solution and that its demands were, from our point of view, impossible for the Soviet Union and Cuba to accept. …in The Eye of the Storm
Difficult to all put together. Other contentious points of interest: Was “counterrevolutionary” just another easy way to imprison gays and writers? It will be interesting to see how historians judge Castro.
Posted by: slothrop | May 23 2005 21:23 utc | 33
slothrop
i don’t give a flying fuck how historians will judge castro. sometimes our judgements are so close to impertinance
the cuban people decided their history – they chose fidel – events conspired for the cubans to choose socialism
you have governors in your country who are responsible for more executions than the govt of cuba. judge cuba at your peril – if your country could offer even a little – a little of the equality of opportunity in education, for example – or health – then perhaps it might be in a position to judge her
slothrop, i am very very angry with you – societies are created with human beings – human beings coalesce with ideas – sometimes the convergence brings benefits to all – sometimes it leads to catastrophe
but we simply have no right to sit – as you are doing – quoting some letter – that i have never heard of – that seems quite strange – but even if it was true – which i doubt – who brought those events – whom
this little little country has done all it has been capable of doing – of course it is flawed – how could it be otherwise
remember when the american were killing people by proxy all over africa – it was the cubans who came to the defence of the people – that will never be forgotten
their doctors & their teachers & their soldiers have been exemplary all over the third world – being the only ones who went to that aid of the poor in a very real way
internationalisme has been a fundamental aspect of cuba & i for one refuse to hear it been ridiculed & judged while in miami – murderers & thugs dine out with their friend jeb bush & their colleagues in both political parties
cubans are my brothers & sisters
i wish they are capable to follow in the example of el che
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 21:58 utc | 34
& alabama
as i understand it – right after their victory – i think fidel & others thought it would be possible to arrive at friendly relations with america – it is clear in the written histories
i think che & an important number of others were less nationalist & were more internationalist voire socialist but there position in the beginning was not the majority position
history & the paranoia of american foreign policy created in a sense cuban socialism
there are two historians one an american steve niblo & aan australian barry carr who have written well on both cuba & mexico
is latin american studies a large discipline in american universities
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 22:03 utc | 35
The letter is reprinted in former Cuba UN Ambassador Carlos Lechuga’s book.
Rgiap, mellow out. I was merely pointing out how the popular narratives of Castro are so wildly presented, one cannot help to be ambivalent about Castro’s biography.
I’m conditioned to revile dictators, and Castro is a dictator. But, presently, I think we may as well admit the US is ruled by a kind of virtual dictatorship.
El tiempo da buen consejo!
Posted by: slothrop | May 23 2005 22:12 utc | 36
americans live in a astate of happy mutual infantilism with their political leadership & their coddled dictatorships are absolutely dependant on the medicated media that murdoch dictates
entertainment – distance – punishment
the institution of fear is created around
crumbling self(ves)
perhaps it is less true at a local level – i don’t know – i am forbidden( happily) – from visiting your united states of america
but effectively your huey longs are just mere exaggerations of the kind of power – this happy mutual infantilism allows
& no i insist on the exemplarity of the cuban people
they have been i beacon for many
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 22:36 utc | 37
rgiap,
the cubans chose castro? was he really elected by them? castro is no different from any other lying american politician who claims a false mandate for the people and then usurps power for himself. like the neocons, he is not for democracy or pluralism or freedoms. like any dictator he abuses power in cuba no LESS than occurs in the nation in you so despise but do not truly know. if all us americans had food and clothing and shelter and health care, we would still have the good sense to realize that our leader’s canabalistic foreign policy and our dwindling civil liberties would STILL suck! providing state-sponsored health care for the people is not enough to excuse dictatorship. throwing off one form of oppression for another is not enough.
we politically active americans are concerned about fixing our nation so that we actually get the type of democracy we want and deserve. the poor cubans can’t even do that. how you can defend dictatorship anywhere? how can you defend complete loss of ability to protest one’s gevernment? the ability to protest is the one thing we americans are counting on to help us change our leaders’ dreadful policies. pro-democracy cubans are arrested and treated god know how in cuba. they are our philosphical comrades, not the cuban dictator castro.
and why on earth woulod anybody forbid you to travel to ANY country? what’s up with that?
Posted by: gylangirl | May 23 2005 23:27 utc | 38
gylangirl
he stae does not care what we think as long as we are not effective
once you are effective – you will first be vilified, then you will be isolated & finally you will be assassinated like that american angel, fred hampton
the difference between the cuba of batista – & the cuba those gansters in miami want & the cuba of today is so qualitatively different as to be almost of another world
of the dissidents in cuba – i refer you to any number of articles on counterpunch for example – which examine the ‘real’ nature of that dissidence
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 23:37 utc | 39
& yes your country has refused me to enter your country even at the invitation of your universities, not once but three times & the last time they sd – do not ask again & i won’t
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 23:39 utc | 40
gylangirl:
You just might want to read a few books before you pontificate so much about Cuba.
Your ignorance is showing.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 23 2005 23:50 utc | 41
but if somehow i should enter her clandestinely i will find my way to your farm flashharry & will eat watermelon, fish a little & read your father’s plaidoires before the courts
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 23 2005 23:58 utc | 42
rgiap,
I am sorry that you were refused entry to the usa. It is a shame that you cannot come here and see more good in us.
I understand that the US government has often fomented dissent in other countries. No doubt they have also tried to do so in cuba. But surely, there must be a cuban dissident who envisions a cuba better than batista’s AND better than castro’s, better than communist totalitarianism ANd better than pure cannabalistic capitalism. surely the choice for cubans is not all-or-nothing.
Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 0:06 utc | 43
@flashharry,
I do not apologize for my understanding that all totalitarianism sucks –even in Cuba! At least I do not excuse american capitalist authoritarians as I “pontificate” in favor of establishing true democracies both here and in cuba. To fall into ideological lockstep with a preferred dogma in order to denounce its equally repugnant polar opposite is your and rgiap’s way of pontificating. No amount of book reading can justify that. To call me ignorant for my differing opinion when you have no idea what I have or haven’t read is also rather elitist.
Posted by: gylangirl | May 24 2005 0:19 utc | 44
@gylangirl:
Point taken and well said. I tend to analyze how things happen historically, and am not much into black and white views of things.
And how Cuba got to be where it is in 2005 is what interests me.
Why this island stagnated for over 45 years. Blame Castro-sure, there’s grounds there. Blame the US–sure grounds there.
In the OAS Mexico took the lead in reintegrating Cuba into the hemisphere for 30 years. Thwarted always by someone.
And the population of Cuba has rotted economically for 45 years,for no good reason.
Yeah, call me an elitist. You can call me ignorant also. Been called far worse in my time.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 24 2005 0:39 utc | 45
Alabama from upthread: I don’t know if Castro has readied the Cuban people for what is coming. I do know that they are a generous and warm people aside from their loathsome habit of loving to fight roosters and I can only hope for the best as do you.
My significant other’s last cousin just came to the US about two years ago and oddly enough was helped to get here by the Cuban ambassador to Mexico.
Gylangirl: I think you have the right take on the situation about Castro. As I’ve said before, I know some Cubans who fought in the revolution and they have always said communism was not what they fought for. My SO’s mother also told me about a woman from her neighborhood in Havana who made the mistake of commenting in a store when hearing about Che dying, “Good. That’s one less communist we have to get rid of.” The neighbors heard about it and beat the hell out of her. So, yes totalitarianism sucks.
Posted by: aw | May 24 2005 0:40 utc | 46
che, for me rests the exemplary man & will remain forever as an exemplar for anyone engaged in changing this world
read his works, study his speeches, note his actions – even in the failed bolivian intervention – he begain what different grovts & groups are arriving at today – as in uruguay & nicarague where recently the left has won nearly all local elections
the root of nearly all the thinking of change in latin america has come from this argentinian doctor who sd at the risk of seeming ridiculous that a revolutionary is moved by a profound sense of love
& no amount of hysteria, of mud splattering – of regashes of the indecents histories of non person will wash away the image of this man who always thought of the other before he thought of himself
i adored him at 14
i am indebted to him at 50
i will love him forever
venceremos
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 0:48 utc | 47
@aw:
What interests me is why it happened that way in 59 and 60, and i have never seen a satisfactory explanation.
@Giap:
Get over it. He misread the “objective conditions” in Bolivia and got his clock cleaned.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 24 2005 0:57 utc | 48
FlashHarry, what do you mean when you say that “the population of Cuba has rotted economically for 45 years”? By the standards of prosperous pre-Castro Cubans, I certainly see the point. But by the standards of impoverished pre-Castro Cubans, I think the point is open to debate. Castro’s Cubans have a health-care delivery system rivalled by none, and they have universal literacy as well (or so I’m told). Or to put it another way: Castro hasn’t just perpetuated his regime, he’s perpetuated the delivery of its essential services, and I think this has to be taken into account. Perhaps I romanticize, but I regard an eventual lifting of the seige as a test of the regime’s achievements.
Posted by: alabama | May 24 2005 1:00 utc | 49
@Bama:
Well the peasants didn’t count, didn’t vote, didn’t get educated, and only got to see the curandero. Pre-Castro Cuba was all about the interests of the elites.
Trade in Cuba in 1959 was about 90% with the US-Cuba WAS the 51st state.
Imagine if that had continued in some form.
All I’m saying.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 24 2005 1:09 utc | 50
FlashHarry, I take this to mean that, structurally speaking, the peasants’ situation would have remained pretty much the same. Or should I be mindful of some “trickle-down” effect?
Posted by: alabama | May 24 2005 1:20 utc | 51
Or should I be mindful of some “trickle-down” effect?
OK, I can’t take it anymore!
Given the Cuban exiles I have known, it would have been vampire suck up, not “trickle down”.
But losing the US as a trade partner after 1960 did not help anyone, and hurt Cuba much more than us–very seriously hurt it–regardless of the vampiric effect.
Posted by: FlashHarry | May 24 2005 1:29 utc | 52
alabama
what flashharry is saying is without the revolution – meyer lansky, lucky luciano & carmine galante would have had what they always wanted a direct relation between organised crime & the state & the five families would have been the beneficiaries
now th capos of of the legions are all in govt in the us what do you need a little island for
alberto anastasia = rumsfield pentagon = murder incorporated
alan greenspan = meyer lansky paul wolfowitz = luckly luciano
dick cheney = frank costello , george bush = some foot soldier no one wants
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 1:29 utc | 53
i’m surprised at the number of comments that see it as a foregone conclusion that the cuba will fall back into the u.s.’ basket after fidel departs. no mention of venezuela, eh? venezuela was the only latin american nation that openly supported The Revolution, supplying arms and an operations base. the blossoming collaborations between chavez & castro currently underway, concurrent w/ the trending bolivarian revolution underway across the southern hemisphere, can only leave one rooting for the anti-imperialists. many years ago fidel pegged venezuela as the idea country to launch a continental revolution. and though he might have underestimated the voracity of the gluttonous eagle to the north, the longest recorded lifespan of a bald eagle comes in at around 48 years.
I am an anti-imperialist. I am opposed to having the eagle put its talons on any other Land.
— Mark Twain, Oct. 15, 1900
Posted by: b real | May 24 2005 3:13 utc | 55
to compare cuba with other caribbean countries would make more sense. cuba’s people are poor, but no worse off than other people in the region. at least cuba was a sovereign nation unlike most others that are owned by the multinational/IMF/world bank cabal.
someone stated something about wonderful costa rica. it is a country that hs remained peaceful, mainly because its never given its masters any trouble. i’m sure if the costa rican government started talking of eradicating poverty or free healthcare the powers that be would act fast to protect their investments.
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 24 2005 7:40 utc | 56
What kind of society have the Cubans actually managed to produce for themselves since 1959?
One, as many commentators upthread note, that has had unparalleled successes in providing healthcare and education for all – successes that stand up not just within the region, but at a global level (compare Cuban and US infant mortality stats).
An economist friend calculated a while back that the average annual income in Cuba is about $3,000, but the people are not hungry, nor do they want for basic services. Every care is taken to protect them eg in the recent hurricanes, there were no reports of any life lost in Cuba.
In fact, as a poor nation (and we can argue about how much of that is attributable to the US economic blockade for the past 40 years against the island – which affects the acquisition of basic commodities like cement, for example), Cuba is remarkable in that it exports healthcare professionals to other poor countries – see recent aid to Haiti after devastating floods, doctors working in grassroots health centres in the slums of Caracas, HIV/AIDS doctors sent to South Africa to help with the crisis there, over 15,000 child victims of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor fire treated. In a country where the average annual income is c$3,000 – amazing.
Cubans are also innovators – the blockade has made them adept recyclers, and technologically they are pioneers in human biotech, meningitis prevention, and have developed a new method of setting bones that does not require a plaster-of-paris cast.
The example of Costa Rica is interesting – it having been groomed deliberately by the US as an “alternative” to Cuba within the region. OK if you like your alternative to be a monoculture based on Intel chips, I suppose. Costa Rica does not have an army (it is backed by US military power) so the savings on what would be military spending can be used elsewhere. In Cuba, the army pays for itself by undertaking paid work.
But the real question is what other Central American country where the US has been kicking it up in the past 20-30 years would you like to live in? El Salvador? Nicaragua (life expectancy down to an average of 41 years)? Honduras (street children executed by paramilitaries)? Guatemala?
Yes, Cuban agriculture is in transition, but I don’t know much about it. Organic farming has been identified as providing value added, and there is an attempt to move away from sugar (because the global market for food commodities is in a slump generally ).
Cuba does have regular elections, and with universal suffrage. As rgiap notes, RSF and other covertly US-funded bodies have made much of “dissent” in the past several years. I understand from a friend who was in Havana recently that a new phenomenon is developing there, rooftop theater, where people put on improvised shows on the roofs, the content of which is not censored by the state. (Incidentally, I am a huge dissenter from the political system in the “democracy” in which I live – where the leader was recently re-elected with a huge majority of seats in the legislature – but only 1 in 5 people voted for him – guess which country?)
The national pasttime (a hangover from Soviet days) in Cuba is chess – apart from soccer and baseball. Castro is a chess player of old (see his recent out-smarting of Bush over Posada), and I imagine that the Cubans have got the post-succession game plan thoroughly mapped out. It’s not just Raul, but there’s a whole second tier of leaders coming through in the younger generation.
As for a US invasion, yes of course, Dubya is barmy enough (got to get West Indies Sugar back, it’s a family thing). But I also think that if he did (or Bolton or Noreiga or whoever), several hundred thousand Brazilians, Venezuelans and others from the region (and rgiap!) would be there in a flash to defend the place.
We live in hope. And indeed, venceremos.
Posted by: Dismal Science | May 24 2005 13:43 utc | 57
sorry for the cut && paste but this article seems to have a special interest re our discussions – & it is relatively long
Bearing a Secret Message from Fidel About Terrorism
My Visit to the Clinton White House
By GABRIEL GARCÍA MÁRQUEZ
At the end of March 1998, when I had confirmed to Princeton University my literary workshop for April 25, I contacted Bill Richardson on the phone to ask him to arrange a private visit with President Clinton to discuss the Colombia situation. Richardson asked me to call him a week before my trip for the answer. A few days later I went to Havana, to get some data for a press report I’d write on the Pope’s visit, when talking with Fidel I mentioned the possibility of a meeting with President Clinton.
It was there that Fidel came up with the idea of sending a confidential message on a sinister terrorist plan, which Cuba had just discovered, that could affect not only both countries but many others as well. He decided himself that it should not be a personal letter to avoid putting Clinton in the predicament of giving an answer; he preferred a written summary of our conversation on the plot and on other subjects of mutual interest. In addition to the text, he suggested two unwritten questions that I could raise with Clinton if the circumstances were propitious.
That night I became aware that my trip to Washington had taken an unforeseen and significant turn, and that I could no longer see it as a simple personal visit. Thus, I not only confirmed to Richardson the date of my arrival but I also announced him, on the phone, that I was carrying an urgent message for President Clinton.
Out of respect for the agreed secrecy I didn’t mention on the phone who was sending it although he must have guessed it– nor did I let it transpire that a delayed delivery could be the cause of major catastrophes and the death of innocent people. His answer did not reach me during my week in Princeton, and that made me think that the White House was also considering the fact that the motive for my first request had changed. I even thought that the interview would not be granted.
As soon as I arrived in Washington on Friday May 1, a Richardson staff told me on the phone that the President could not receive me because he would be in California until Wednesday 6, and I had plans to travel to Mexico one day before that date, but they were suggesting that I meet with the President’s director of the National Security Council, Sam Berger, who could receive my message on behalf of the President.
My malignant suspicion was that they were interposing conditions so that the message would get to the special services and not to the President himself. Berger had been present during my meeting with Clinton in the White House Oval Office, on September 1997, and his few words on the Cuba situation did not run contrary to those of the President, although I can’t say he shared all his views without reservations. Therefore, I did not feel I was authorized to accept of my own volition the alternative of being received by Berger and not by the President, most of all because it was a very sensitive message, and it was not mine. My personal opinion was that it could only be delivered to Clinton personally.
The only thing I thought of at the moment was to inform Richardson’s office that if the change of interlocutor was only due to the President’s absence, I could stay longer in Washington and wait for his return. The reply was that they would let him know. Some time later I found in the hotel a telephone note from ambassador James Dobbins, director of Interamerican affairs at the NSC, but I chose not to acknowledge receipt while my proposal to wait for the president’s return was being processed.
I was not in a hurry. I had written more than 20 useful pages of my memoirs in the idyllic Princeton premises, and the pace had not diminished in my impersonal room at the Washington hotel where I spent up to 10 hours a day writing. However, even if I refused to admit it, the true reason for my confinement was the custody of the message lying in the safety box.
At the Mexican airport I had lost a coat as I watched for my personal computer, the suitcase where I carried my drafts and diskettes of the book I was working on and the message’s original without copies. Just the idea that I could loose it sent shivers down my spine, not so much for the loss itself as for the fact that it would have been easy to identify its source and destination.
Thus, I devoted myself to its custody while I continued to write, to eat my meals and to receive my visits in the hotel room whose safety box I was far from trusting, as it had no combination lock but a key that seemed to have been bought at a convenient store around the corner. I always carried it in my pocket, and after every inevitable occasion in which I left my room, I checked that the paper was still in its place and in the sealed envelope. I had read it so many times that I had practically learned it by heart, just to feel reassured in case I had to explain any of the issues at delivery time.
I always took it for granted that my telephone conversations in those days –as well as those of my interlocutors– were tapped. However, I relaxed, as I was conscious of being a part of an irreproachable mission, one that was good for both Cuba and the United States. My other serious problem was that I could not discuss my doubts with anyone without violating secrecy.
The Cuban diplomatic representative in Washington, Fernando Remirez, offered to be fully at my service to keep the channel with Havana opened, but confidential communications are so slow and hazardous from Washington –especially in such a sensitive case– that ours could only be solved with a special envoy. The response was a gentle request to wait in Washington for as long as necessary to fulfill my mission, just as I had resolved; at the same time I was humbly asked to be most careful to avoid offending Sam Berger for not accepting him as an interlocutor. The funny end of the message left no doubt about the author, even without a signature: “We wish you can write a lot”.
As chance would have it, former president Cesar Gaviria had fortunately arranged a private dinner for Monday night with Thomas Mack’ McLarty who had just resigned from his position as President Clinton’s advisor for Latin America, although he still was his oldest and closest friend. We had met the previous year, and Gaviria’s family had since then planned the dinner with a double purpose: to discuss with McLarty the cryptic Colombian situation and to please his wife’s wishes to clarify with me some points about my books.
The occasion seemed providential. Gaviria is a great friend and a smart councilor, a resourceful person as well informed on the situation of Latin America as anyone can be, and an alert and understanding observer of the Cuban reality. I arrived at his place an hour before the agreed time, and having no time for consultations I took the liberty of disclosing to him the essence of my mission so that he could give me some ideas.
Gaviria gave me the right dimension of the problem and brought some order into the puzzle. He showed me that the precautions taken by Clinton’s advisors were only normal, given the political and security risks involved for a US President in personally receiving such sensitive information through an irregular channel. He didn’t have to explain it for I immediately remembered a case in point: in our dinner at Martha’s Vineyard, during the massive exodus of 1994, President Clinton authorized me to raise this and other hot Cuba issues, but he first warned me that he could not say a word. I will never forget how intensely he listened to me, and the great efforts he had to make not to reply to some highly charged subjects.
Gaviria also alerted me to the fact that Berger is a proficient and serious official one should be very mindful of when relating to the president. He also showed me that the mere fact of assigning him to meet with me was a very special high-level deference, since private requests like mine would usually go for years to peripheral offices of the White House, or be transferred to junior officers in the CIA or the State Department.
Anyway, Gaviria seemed pretty sure that the text handed to Berger would make it to the President’s hands, and that was essential. Finally, just as I had dreamed, he announced me that at the end of the dinner he would leave me alone with McLarty so that he would open a direct line for me to the President.
The evening was pleasurable and fruitful; it was just the Gaviria family and us. McLarty, like Clinton, is a man from the South and both are friendly and easygoing like the Caribbean people. At dinner ice was broken early, foremost about the United States policy towards Latin America, particularly concerning narcotics trafficking and the peace processes. Mark was so well informed that he knew even the smallest details of my interview with President Clinton last September, when we discussed in depth the shooting down of the planes in Cuba and where the idea was raised that the Pope could act as a United States mediator during his trip to Cuba.
McLarty’s general position on relations with Colombia for which he seems willing to work– is that US policies are in need of radical changes. He said that the government was willing to make contact with any president elected in order to really work toward peace. But neither him nor the other officials I spoke with later have any clear thought about what those changes might be. The dialogue was so candid and fluent that when Gaviria and his family left us alone in the dinning room, McLarty and I were like two old friends.
Unhesitatingly, I disclosed the content of the message for his President and he did not conceal his apprehension over the terrorist plan, even if unaware of the atrocious details. He had not been informed of my request to see the President but he promised to speak to him as soon as he came back from California. Encouraged by the easiness of the dialogue I dared to suggest that he accompanied me to the interview with the President, and I wished there would be no other officials, so that we could talk without reservations. The only question he asked me about that –and I never knew why– was if Richardson was aware of the content of the message, and I said no. Then he ended the conversation with the promise that he would speak to the president.
Early on Tuesday morning I reported to Havana through the usual channel about the main topics discussed over dinner, and I took the liberty of asking a timely question: if at the end the President decided not to receive me, and if he gave the task to either McLarty or to Berger, which of the two shall I deliver the message to? The response seemed to be in favor of McLarty, but always careful not to offend Berger.
That day I had lunch at the Provence restaurant with Mrs McLarty, since our conversation on literature had not been possible during dinner at Gaviria’s. However, the questions she had noted were soon responded and all that was left was her curiosity about Cuba. I clarified all I could and I think she felt more relaxed. When the time came for dessert, she phoned her husband from the table and he told me that he had not seen the President yet but he was hopeful of giving me some news during the day.
In fact, hardly two hours had passed when one of his assistants informed me through Cesar Gaviria’s office that the meeting would be held the following day, at the White House, with McLarty and three senior officials from the National Security Council. I thought that if Sam Berger had been one of them they would have mentioned his name, and now I had the opposite concern, that is, I was alarmed that he would not be present. To what extent could this be due to my carelessness in a tapped phone call? But now that didn’t matter much since McLarty had made the arrangement with the president who should be already aware of the message. Thus, I made the immediate and not consulted decision of not waiting any longer: I would go to the meeting to deliver my message to Mack McLarty. I felt so reassured that I reserved a seat for a direct flight to Mexico at five thirty the following afternoon. I was working on that when I received from Havana the answer to my latest consultation with the most engaging consent that I have ever been given in my life: “We trust your talents”.
The rendezvous was for Wednesday May 6, at 11:15, in the McLarty offices at the White House. I was received by the three announced officials of the National Security Council: Richard Clarke, leading director of multilateral affairs and presidential advisor on all subjects of international policy, especially for the fight on terrorism and narcotics; James Dobbins, senior director at the NSC for Interamerican affairs with the position of ambassador and presidential advisor on Latin America and the Caribbean; and, Jeff Delaurentis, director of Interamerican affairs at the NSC and special advisor on Cuba. There was no chance, at any time, to ask why Berger was not there. The three officials were gentle and highly professional.
I was not carrying personal notes but I knew the message in every detail, and in my organizer I had taken note of the only thing I was afraid to forget: the two off- text questions. Mack was about to finish a meeting in another room. While we waited, Dobbins gave me a rather pessimistic overview of the Colombia situation. His information was the same as McLarty’s on Monday’s dinner but he sounded more familiar with it. I had told Clinton the previous year that the US anti-drug policy worked as a nefarious magnifier of Colombia’s historical violence. That’s why it caught my attention that this NSC group –without referring to my specific phrase” apparently agreed about changes. They were very careful not to give their views on the government or the current candidates, but they left no doubt that they found the situation catastrophic and the future uncertain. I was not happy about the purpose to amend the situation since various Washington observers of our politics had distressingly commented: “They are more dangerous now that they really want to help one of them said to me– because they want to stick their nose in everything”.
McLarty entered, dressed in a neat suit and with his good manners, but with the haste of someone who has interrupted something of capital importance to take care of us. Nevertheless, he brought to the meeting a useful measured disposition and a dose of good humor. From the night of the dinner I had liked that he always talked looking straight in the eyes. It was the same during this meeting. After a warm embrace he sat in front of me with his hands on his knees and started speaking with a common phrase so properly said that it rang of truth: “We are at your disposal”.
I wanted to clearly establish from the beginning that I would be speaking in my own capacity as a writer, without any other merit or mandate, on such an abrasive and engaging case as Cuba’s. So, I started by making a precision that did not seem superfluous to me for the hidden recorders: “This is not an official visit”.
They all nodded in agreement and their unexpected solemnity I found amazing. Then, in a simple way and a rather colloquial narrative, I related to them when, how and why I had had the conversation with Fidel that gave rise to the informal notes that I should deliver to president Clinton. I handed them to Mack McLarty in the closed envelope and I asked him to please read them so that I could comment on them. It was the English translation of seven topics written in six pages, double spacing: a terrorist plot; relative complacency over the measures announced on March 20 to resume flights from the United States to Cuba; Richardson’s trip to Havana on January 1998; Cuba’s arguments on refusing humanitarian aid; recognition for the Pentagon’s favorable report on Cuba’s military situation;–it was a report that said that Cuba posed no danger to the security of the United States– approval of the solution of the Iraqi crisis; and appreciation over the comments made by Clinton in the presence of Mandela and Koffi Anan with regards to Cuba.
As you’ll see, he lists the other points.
McLarty did not read them aloud as I had expected and he would undoubtedly have done if he had known the context beforehand. He read it to himself, apparently with the fast reading method that president Kennedy had made fashionable, but his changing emotions showed on his face as light in the water. I had read it myself so many times that I could practically know which of his expressions corresponded to the different points in the document.
The first point, about the terrorist plot, made him grumble and he said: “It’s terrible”. Later he suppressed a mischievous smile and without interrupting his reading he said: “We have common enemies”. I think he said it referring to the fourth point, where a description is made of a group of senators plotting to boycott the passage of the Torres-Rangel’s and Dodd’s bills and appreciation is expressed about Clinton’s efforts to save them.
At the end of his reading, he handed the paper to Dobbins and he to Clarke who read it while Mack extolled Mortimer Zuckerman, editor and publisher of the US News & World Report magazine, who had traveled to Havana last February. He made the comment in relation to something he had just read on point six of the document, but he did not answer the implicit question on whether Zuckerman had informed Clinton of the two twelve-hour conversations he had had with Fidel Castro.
The point that took practically all of the useful time after the reading was that of the terrorist plan, which made an impression on everyone. I told them that I had to overcome my terror over a bomb explosion as I was flying to Mexico after having learned of it in Havana. I then felt that the time had come to pose my first personal question suggested by Fidel: Wouldn’t it be possible for the FBI to contact their Cuban counterpart for a joint struggle on terrorism? Before they could react I added a line of my own making: “I’m sure that you’d find a prompt and positive reaction on the part of the Cuban authorities”.
I was amazed at the quick and strong reaction of the four. Clarke, who seemed to be closer to the subject, said it was a very good idea but he warned me that the FBI did not take up any case that showed up in the papers while the investigation was underway. Would the Cubans be willing to keep the case secret? As I was anxious to place my second question I gave them the type of answer that could bring a respite under the circumstances: “There is nothing that the Cubans like better than keeping secrets”.
Lacking an adequate motive for my second question, I decided to put it as an assertion: cooperation in matters of security could open the way to a propitious climate leading to the resumption of Americans travels to Cuba. My shrewdness backfired, for Dobbins misunderstood me and said that that would be solved when the March 20 measures were implemented.
After the misunderstanding was clarified, I spoke of the pressure I feel from many Americans, from all walks of life, who come to me for help in making contacts for business or leisure in Cuba. In this context I mentioned Donald Newhouse, editor of various journals and chairman of the Associated Press, who treated me to a lavish dinner at his countryside mansion in New Jersey at the end of my literary workshop in Princeton University. His current dream is traveling to Cuba to discuss with Fidel personally the establishment of a permanent AP bureau in Havana, similar to CNN’s.
I can’t be sure but it seems to me that in the lively White House conversation it was clear that they did not have, or do not know, or didn’t want to reveal any immediate intention to resume Americans travels to Cuba. However, I should emphasize that at no time there was any mention of democratic reforms, free elections or human rights, nor any of the political clichés with which Americans pretend to condition any project of cooperation with Cuba. On the contrary, my clearest impression of this trip is the certainty that reconciliation is beginning to grow as something irreversible in the collective consciousness.
Clarke called us back to order when the conversation began to drift and indicated –perhaps as a message– that they would take immediate steps for a joint US-Cuba plan on terrorism. At the end of a long notation in his notepad, Dobbins concluded that they would communicate with their embassy in Cuba to implement the project. I made an ironic comment on the rank he was giving the Interests Section in Havana to which Dobbins responded in good humor: “What we have there is not an embassy but it is much bigger than an embassy”. They all laughed with mischievous complicity. No other points were discussed, as it did not seem appropriate, but I assumed they would analyze them later among themselves.
The whole meeting, including Mack’s delay, lasted fifty minutes. Mack concluded it with a ritual phrase: “I know that you have a very tight agenda before you get back to Mexico and we have also many things ahead”. He immediately followed with a short and concise paragraph, which sounded like a formal response to our effort. It would be reckless to try to give an exact quotation but the spirit and the tone of his words expressed his appreciation for the great importance of the message, worthy of the full attention of his government, of which they would urgently take care. Then, in the way of a happy ending, and looking straight into my eyes, he crowned me with a personal laurel: “Your mission was in fact of utmost importance, and you have discharged it very well”. Neither my excessive honor nor my absence of modesty has allowed me to abandon that phrase to the ephemeral glory and the microphones hidden in flower vases.
I left the White House with the firm impression that the effort and the uncertainties of the previous days had been worthy. The annoyance for not having delivered the message personally to the President had been compensated by a more informal and operative conclave whose good results would be forthcoming. Likewise, knowing Clinton and Mack’s affinities and the nature of their friendship dating back to grammar school, I was sure that sooner or later the document would end up in his hands in the familiar ambiance of an after-dinner.
At the end of the meeting, the Presidency of the Republic came across with a gallant gesture when outside the office an usher brought me an envelope with the pictures taken six months before during my previous visit to the Oval Office. So, on my way back to the hotel my only frustration was that until then I had not been able to discover or enjoy the miracle of the blooming cherry trees in that wonderful springtime.
I barely had time to pack and catch the five o’clock plane. The one that had taken me to Mexico fourteen days before had to return to base with a damaged turbine, and we waited four hours at the airport until another plane was available. The aircraft I took back to Mexico, after the meeting in the White House, was delayed in Washington for one and a half hour while the radar was repaired with the passengers on board.
Before landing in Mexico, five hours later, we had to over fly the city for almost two hours because one runway was out of service. Nothing like that had happened to me since I took a flight for the first time fifty two years before. But it couldn’t be any different for a peaceful adventure that will occupy a place of privilege in my memoirs.
Gabriel Garcia Marquez
Posted by: remembereringgiap | May 24 2005 20:43 utc | 58
DS, you wouldn’t want to forget that modern miracle that is haiti!
Posted by: lenin’s ghost | May 25 2005 8:20 utc | 59