This is a question I'm often asking. Ever since I've been little, I have had an interest in the island that wavers between low simmer and rapid boil. It might be because I spent a lot of time during my formative years in Miami, which in the 1980's wasn't the hip, pan-American party that it is now. I remember a dichotomy between old Jews and Cubans. I also remember that the Cubans looked like "white" people; they might have a more Mediterranean complexion, but if they didn't speak, you couldn't tell them apart from a Jew or an Italian.
I was always blown away by how much Spanish I heard. I also loved their stories. A guy who still works for the family company there, Manny, came to Miami as a kid with his brother, their parents making sure they escaped the Revolution. Stories like that are a dime a dozen in Miami. I find them fascinating. But, I digress.
I think what particularly fascinates me about Cuba is how an island 90 miles away from the most powerful country in the world has been able to maintain a centrally-planned economy and Socialist political stranglehold for over 50 years, thumbing its nose at us the whole time. Most of this is being practical: Cuba is always cozying up to our more flush adversaries, the Soviet Union, China, Venezuela, etc. Without these various benefactors, the Castro regime probably would have collapsed upon itself or adopted a more market-friendly, inclusive approach to governing.
Also, if you're Fidel Castro, you recognize the fact that you need protection from the United States. For decades prior to the Revolution, Cuba was to the United States what a son or daughter is to a narcissistic parent; the child exists to make the parent feel better about his or herself. Cuba was a playground for rich Americans, large corporations, and the mafia. Americans could behave with impunity. The country was essentially a vassal to it's larger neighbor. The United States even ran the country four separate times from 1898 to 1922.
Castro's revolution was obviously a rebellion to all of this abuse. It's absolutely pathological. Nationalizing American concerns. Implementing a centrally-planned economy. Enthusiastically throwing the country into the Soviet camp. The Revolution's raison d'etre is shunning the exploitative hand of the Yanquis.
Castro has done remarkable things for the Cuban people. He raised the national literacy rate from 56% in 1953 to 100% in 1986. Cuban health care is the envy of the world. But, he also made the country a case study in how central planning and governing by knee-jerk opposition to your enemy-neighbor can turn a thriving economy with abundant resources into an economy with zero growth in the official sector and essentially no functional state apparatus. Oh, and it's also a police state that doesn't tolerate any opposition to Socialism and one of the least free places on the planet.
A lot of Americans point to the US embargo as reason the Cuban economy is in such shambles and that it's working to remove the Castros from power. I say see above; they've done it to themselves. But, for 30 years, they had the Soviet Union to prop them up and even after the latter imploded, they have managed to keep on keepin' on, even without introducing too many market-oriented reforms like other Communist countries. I would even posit that the embargo gives the Castros cover to pursue a more authoritarian and rigidly-Socialist agenda. Try maintaining a Socialist autocracy when your subjects have iPhones with access to Twitter. It ain't happenin'.
On the technological front, I feel there has been a relaxation. More and more Cuban bloggers are becoming more and more bold. One of my favorites is Yoani Sanchez who paints us a picture of the banalities of day-to-day life in Castroist Havana. Some of it is remarkably similar to our own mundane travails. Some of it is totally alien. It's just so nice to have that window into a country from which we are so isolated. Another person I recently started to follow is Rosa Maria Paya, who is outspoken in standing up to the Cuban state for allegedly having a hand in the murder of her activist father. Again, another window so we can see what's really going on, absent the noise and filters we encounter from our governments.
But, have these green shoots yielded substantial gains in freedom on the island? Not really. In fact, nothing really is happening. Once in awhile, we'll hear grumblings that some American concern is engaged in some low level of trade with a Cuban counterpart. Or, we'll hear about a new outspoken political activist who is courageously "taking on" the oppressive Cuban state. But, nothing really comes of it. The island is still incredibly poor, Socialist, and closed off to Americans. Nothing substantial comes from either side. We are mired in a policy that hasn't worked for 50+ years and was implemented as a reaction to geopolitical reality 50+ years ago. Who knows when it will end?
So, what's going on in Cuba? Nothing. But, I'm watching in case something does.
Wednesday, October 30, 2013
Friday, October 4, 2013
#UNGA
I realize it has been a long time since I have published a post and that the chatter surrounding this year's United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) has died down along with its accompanying traffic in New York. That said, something truly remarkable happened this year coinciding with the annual General Assembly: the United States and Iran now strongly dislike each other, rather than outright hating each other.
I thought this was in the works years ago when the more liberal Khatami was President of Iran, but my hopes for a thaw between Iran and the United States were dashed when the more bombastic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. During the latter's regime, emboldened by American flailing in neighboring Iraq, Iran stepped up the bellicose rhetoric. It also stepped up efforts to create nuclear weapons. Besides the hostage crisis which accompanied the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, I don't think we have ever been at a lower point in our relations with them.
Hope arose, however, with the election of the more liberal Hassan Rouhani, who is described as having more liberal leanings while maintaining good relations with the ruling religious elite. So, how do the flashpoint in Syria, the UNGA, and the election of a more reform-minded cleric to the Iranian presidency coincide to suggest the start of reconciliation between Iran and the United States?
Obama
The outcome of the flashpoint over Syria has made President Obama seemingly exasperated with the Middle East. I don't mean this in a bad way. In his speech to the UNGA, Obama made very clear the United States' strategic ambitions vis-a-vis the Middle East. If you wanted a caption for the speech, I don't think you could go wrong with "I'll Do What I Want". Again, I don't mean this to be a condemnation of anything the President conveyed. In fact, I find it quite refreshing.
The speech asked general questions about the current state of the world: how do we respond to Syria and how do we respond to threats against human decency? He then lays out where the United States stands on these issues.
What I find so refreshing is the unambiguous way he lays out the overarching theme of his foreign policy, impressive for a President who can be verbose on his best day and downright rhetorically confounding on his worst. I also like that he is not afraid to call out the "contradiction" that burdens us in the Middle East: "[T]he United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region's problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslims." I think anybody who has been following our forays into the Middle East for the past 20 years let out a loud, validated "THANK YOU!"
Quite correctly, he said this "damned if we do, damned if we don't" dynamic has dampened the American people's will to get involved in such a tinderbox of a region.
He then very unambiguously says he will work diplomatically whenever possible, but "when it's necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct" action. This is a president who liberally - no pun intended - uses remote-control warplanes, so he can definitely walk the walk. This last line and the line "[T]he United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests," reflect a much-needed "I'll Do What I Want" swagger that I think has been missing from this President's foreign policy. He didn't make apologies for the inevitable fact that we're going to offend some people due to the very complex realities of foreign policy. He also wasn't afraid to call anyone out: Iran, Russia, Arabs, Republicans.
Rouhani
When I printed out Rouhani's speech to the UNGA, I immediately noticed how much lighter it was than Obama's. I was thus surprised that the Iranian president could say so much in half the number of pages as Obama.
I was also surprised because I heard this guy was such a "reformer" - I'm writing after The Phone Call - yet he packed the first four pages reciting the same charges of American militarism that have been coming from Tehran since the Revolution. He eludes to the Cold War and US-Soviet bipolarity:
"At this sensitive juncture in the history of global relations, the age of the zero-sum games is over, even though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and deeply ineffective ways and means to preserve their old superiority and domination. Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances."
Ouch. The branding that he's doing here is very transparent: the US represents the paranoid status quo. He gets to the meat of his vitriol by saying "[p]ropagandistic and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human security." Now who's paranoid? While I am sure the history of human aggression can be traced to a lack of Iran-philia, I'm not concerned with what he says as much as I am concerned with how much this sounds like Ahmadinejad. It's bombastic and inconsistent with reality. I didn't really understand why anyone thinks this guy is a reformer.
From here, he continues his tirade against the Western warmongers and their "'superior us' and 'inferior others'" mentality. But, then on page five, it hit me. He lays out two items that Iranian hardliners would call a sop and objective observers might call "green shoots". The first item concerns Iran's nuclear enrichment program, where he unambiguously declares "[n]uclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions." Furthermore, "[Iran] is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency."
Wow. Well, you can't get more clear than that. This is a major step forward and a major concession, neither of which the ultra-nationalist Ahmadinejad would ever be able to utter. Rouhani quickly gets back to making jabs at US-Western militarism and sanctions, but it's all probably to save face. Give the domestic audience some good red meat and convey some realistic foreign policy. It's like a foreign policy feedback sandwich for domestic hardliners.
Am I optimistic? Not yet. But, the fact that leaders of these two countries, who have been downright hostile to each other for 34 years, actually spoke one-on-one is something we haven't seen since the Revolution. I think that's pretty remarkable.
I also think that an eventual normalization of relations between the US and Iran would be hugely beneficial for both. Iran has much more to gain as the end of sanctions and a US market for their energy exports would be a boon. For the US, you find yourself with a major energy producer who is no longer an enemy. Plus, your real power to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East is boosted significantly. But, even if Rouhani delivers - big "if" - we're a long way from normalization, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
So, let's take stock. We have an American president who is no longer shackled by worries of offending anybody and has said he is open to working with anyone who doesn't operate contrary to our core interests. We have a situation in Syria that has been tempered by a diplomatic solution. We have a reform-minded Iranian president who is willing to sit down without pre-conditions. What a confluence of events. But, don't hold your breath.
I thought this was in the works years ago when the more liberal Khatami was President of Iran, but my hopes for a thaw between Iran and the United States were dashed when the more bombastic Mahmoud Ahmadinejad was elected President in 2005. During the latter's regime, emboldened by American flailing in neighboring Iraq, Iran stepped up the bellicose rhetoric. It also stepped up efforts to create nuclear weapons. Besides the hostage crisis which accompanied the Islamic Revolution in Iran in 1979, I don't think we have ever been at a lower point in our relations with them.
Hope arose, however, with the election of the more liberal Hassan Rouhani, who is described as having more liberal leanings while maintaining good relations with the ruling religious elite. So, how do the flashpoint in Syria, the UNGA, and the election of a more reform-minded cleric to the Iranian presidency coincide to suggest the start of reconciliation between Iran and the United States?
Obama
The outcome of the flashpoint over Syria has made President Obama seemingly exasperated with the Middle East. I don't mean this in a bad way. In his speech to the UNGA, Obama made very clear the United States' strategic ambitions vis-a-vis the Middle East. If you wanted a caption for the speech, I don't think you could go wrong with "I'll Do What I Want". Again, I don't mean this to be a condemnation of anything the President conveyed. In fact, I find it quite refreshing.
The speech asked general questions about the current state of the world: how do we respond to Syria and how do we respond to threats against human decency? He then lays out where the United States stands on these issues.
What I find so refreshing is the unambiguous way he lays out the overarching theme of his foreign policy, impressive for a President who can be verbose on his best day and downright rhetorically confounding on his worst. I also like that he is not afraid to call out the "contradiction" that burdens us in the Middle East: "[T]he United States is chastised for meddling in the region, and accused of having a hand in all manner of conspiracy; at the same time, the United States is blamed for failing to do enough to solve the region's problems, and for showing indifference toward suffering Muslims." I think anybody who has been following our forays into the Middle East for the past 20 years let out a loud, validated "THANK YOU!"
Quite correctly, he said this "damned if we do, damned if we don't" dynamic has dampened the American people's will to get involved in such a tinderbox of a region.
He then very unambiguously says he will work diplomatically whenever possible, but "when it's necessary to defend the United States against terrorist attacks, we will take direct" action. This is a president who liberally - no pun intended - uses remote-control warplanes, so he can definitely walk the walk. This last line and the line "[T]he United States will at times work with governments that do not meet the highest international expectations, but who work with us on our core interests," reflect a much-needed "I'll Do What I Want" swagger that I think has been missing from this President's foreign policy. He didn't make apologies for the inevitable fact that we're going to offend some people due to the very complex realities of foreign policy. He also wasn't afraid to call anyone out: Iran, Russia, Arabs, Republicans.
Rouhani
When I printed out Rouhani's speech to the UNGA, I immediately noticed how much lighter it was than Obama's. I was thus surprised that the Iranian president could say so much in half the number of pages as Obama.
I was also surprised because I heard this guy was such a "reformer" - I'm writing after The Phone Call - yet he packed the first four pages reciting the same charges of American militarism that have been coming from Tehran since the Revolution. He eludes to the Cold War and US-Soviet bipolarity:
"At this sensitive juncture in the history of global relations, the age of the zero-sum games is over, even though a few actors still tend to rely on archaic and deeply ineffective ways and means to preserve their old superiority and domination. Militarism and the recourse to violent and military means to subjugate others are failed examples of the perpetuation of old ways in new circumstances."
Ouch. The branding that he's doing here is very transparent: the US represents the paranoid status quo. He gets to the meat of his vitriol by saying "[p]ropagandistic and unfounded faith-phobic, Islamo-phobic, Shia-phobic, and Iran-phobic discourses do indeed represent serious threats against world peace and human security." Now who's paranoid? While I am sure the history of human aggression can be traced to a lack of Iran-philia, I'm not concerned with what he says as much as I am concerned with how much this sounds like Ahmadinejad. It's bombastic and inconsistent with reality. I didn't really understand why anyone thinks this guy is a reformer.
From here, he continues his tirade against the Western warmongers and their "'superior us' and 'inferior others'" mentality. But, then on page five, it hit me. He lays out two items that Iranian hardliners would call a sop and objective observers might call "green shoots". The first item concerns Iran's nuclear enrichment program, where he unambiguously declares "[n]uclear weapons and other weapons of mass destruction have no place in Iran's security and defense doctrine, and contradict our fundamental religious and ethical convictions." Furthermore, "[Iran] is prepared to engage immediately in time-bound and result-oriented talks to build mutual confidence and removal of mutual uncertainties with full transparency."
Wow. Well, you can't get more clear than that. This is a major step forward and a major concession, neither of which the ultra-nationalist Ahmadinejad would ever be able to utter. Rouhani quickly gets back to making jabs at US-Western militarism and sanctions, but it's all probably to save face. Give the domestic audience some good red meat and convey some realistic foreign policy. It's like a foreign policy feedback sandwich for domestic hardliners.
Am I optimistic? Not yet. But, the fact that leaders of these two countries, who have been downright hostile to each other for 34 years, actually spoke one-on-one is something we haven't seen since the Revolution. I think that's pretty remarkable.
I also think that an eventual normalization of relations between the US and Iran would be hugely beneficial for both. Iran has much more to gain as the end of sanctions and a US market for their energy exports would be a boon. For the US, you find yourself with a major energy producer who is no longer an enemy. Plus, your real power to counter Russian and Chinese influence in the Middle East is boosted significantly. But, even if Rouhani delivers - big "if" - we're a long way from normalization, so let's not get ahead of ourselves.
So, let's take stock. We have an American president who is no longer shackled by worries of offending anybody and has said he is open to working with anyone who doesn't operate contrary to our core interests. We have a situation in Syria that has been tempered by a diplomatic solution. We have a reform-minded Iranian president who is willing to sit down without pre-conditions. What a confluence of events. But, don't hold your breath.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)