By ALBERTO M. PIEDRA
“Behold, I send you out as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves” (Matt. 10:16).
“Man is neither angel nor beast and unhappily whoever wants to act the angel, acts the beast” — Blaise Pascal, Pensées.
Much has been talked about and commented on, both in the media and in intellectual circles, not to mention the public in general, about the recent secret negotiations carried out by the Obama administration and the totalitarian Communist regime of the Castro brothers in Cuba. The negotiations were made public, leading to the consternation of all those who still believe in responsible freedom, the greatest gift granted by God to the human race.
This brief article will not concentrate on the economic consequences of these so-called negotiations between the richest and most powerful economy in the world and a much smaller and bankrupt nation desperate for economic and financial assistance.
It is difficult to hide the fact that the Cuban economy is in shambles and, what is even worse, the Cuban people have been denied the basic rights so much emphasized by John Locke (1) and others of his contemporaries during the Enlightenment; ideas which played a role in the thinking of the Founding Fathers of the United States.
The first charter to support the rights of man is the British Magna Charta, which was imposed on King John by the English nobles in the 13th century. Its basic principles were warmly embraced by the Founding Fathers and later included in the nation’s Constitution and Bill of Rights.
It seems strange that this important issue of human rights that should have been discussed in the preliminary negotiations was largely ignored by both negotiating parties. The Cuban position is understandable; the less this topic is mentioned, the better for the Castro dictatorship which never ceases to characterize the Cuban revolution as an example of social justice for others to follow in accordance with the basic principles of Marxism-Leninism.
Raul Castro’s recent statement in Mexico leaves no doubt as to his real intentions for the future of Cuba. Only a huge dose of naiveté can ignore the real goal of Castro’s Communist system, as expressed by Raul himself in Mexico.
In spite of the lack of fundamental freedoms clearly visible on the island, there are still a few people in academia, the press, and the public in general who are in love with the Cuban revolution. Can they still deny the total failure of the Cuban economy, based on collectivist and Communist policies and the numerous political prisoners who languish in Cuban jails?
In the scale of priorities, can it be said that human rights have descended to a level lower than economics and business interests? If this is true, would it be fair to say that contemporary man has lowered himself to a level where the dignity of the human person is sacrificed on the altar of material gain?
Ironically, this phenomenon is hypocritically presented to the public under the banner of social justice and the common good and the benefit of the less fortunate sectors of society.
This leads me to another question which intrigues me the most. How is it possible that President Obama, in his desire to negotiate with the Castro regime, apparently wished to ignore the horrible human rights situation in Cuba? Can this be said also of powerful business interests whose main objective is, or seems to be, a misguided search for profits?
Supposedly, human rights occupy a primary role in the area of American foreign policy. Recent events seem to contradict this belief. The overall human rights situation in Cuba, for example, was hardly mentioned in the so-called secret negotiations in spite of the fact that any objective observer, analyzing the present situation on the island, has no alternative but to conclude that “freedom,” whether political, economic, or otherwise does not exist in Cuba. Even religious freedom is severely curtailed, especially in the area of education.
It is well known that whatever leverage exists in any international negotiation lies on the side of the more powerful nation. Then, if this is true, why didn’t the Obama administration put conditions, especially in the area of human rights, prior to any so-called future negotiation? Obama had the leverage but apparently did not want to use it.
Even The Washington Post in its editorial of January 9, 2015 claims that “President Obama violated two pledges he had made to link such a liberalization to ‘significant steps toward democracy,’ including the freeing of all political prisoners; and to consult with Cuban civil society, including pro-democracy activists, on the change.” The real reason he violated these pledges is still a big question mark. Could this be called a betrayal of the Cuban human rights activists? I leave the reader to decide for himself.
To negotiate in order to bring a better understanding between the various peoples and nations of the world is undoubtedly beneficial for the maintenance of peace on Earth. However, man must realize that peace “per se” is not enough. It must be a just peace in which the basic human rights and the dignity of the human being are respected.
St. Augustine reminds us that peace must be an orderly peace and adds that “we can know no perfect peace so long as there are evil inclinations to master.” (2)
The recent Cuba policy initiated and sponsored by President Obama pretends to normalize U.S. relations with the Castro regime under present conditions and under a veil of secrecy. The president seems to have forgotten that in the secret negotiations he has carried out with the Cuban government, there are many errors of judgment and loopholes that, in my opinion, have to be clarified.
In the first place, a president who claims incessantly the need for transparency in government seems to suffer lapses in memory once in a while. Perhaps, the utmost secrecy carried out by the administration in its negotiations with Castro is a case in point; not even Congress was consulted. (3) Could this be called an act of transparency in government or, as the president seems to believe, the most transparent administration in history?
With respect to the potential loopholes and errors of judgment which can result from a precipitous and not fully analyzed policy of rapprochement with a committed Communist regime 90 miles from our border should make us pause, as they may haunt us in the future. Not using the virtue of prudence, not to mention wisdom, in our negotiations with a system well known for its continuous violations of human rights — and, I repeat, the dignity of the human being — can only lead to disaster and make a joke of America’s reputation as a champion of freedom.
In fact, it could embolden the Castro brothers to continue their repressive measures which the Cuban people have suffered for 50 years. Washington cannot claim a diplomatic victory with the release of a few political prisoners while, at the same time, over 8,000 peaceful dissidents have been arrested or rearrested in 2014, a number far greater than in 2013.
A brief analysis of the economic and financial situation in Cuba clearly indicates that the beneficiaries of an unconditional negotiation with the Cuban dictatorship would help the Communist regime with very little benefit for the United States. The American government would provide the indispensable life support which would prevent the total collapse of a dysfunctional system which has never ceased to declare the United States and what it represents the greatest enemy of freedom.
The notion that a policy of economic and financial openness with Cuba would help the Cuban people in general is extremely doubtful. There is no need to remind ourselves that the economy and financial institutions are totally controlled by the state and, in particular, by the armed forces (the generals and close relatives). Even the very small portion of the economy (less than 15 percent) that is “privately” owned is also severely controlled by the dictatorial powers of the Communist authorities. Permits to operate small businesses can easily be revoked.
The belief that lifting the U.S. embargo on Cuba will benefit the country’s suffering population may very well turn out to be a disappointing mirage. For example, the only benefit derived from American tourists on the island would be the Castro government, which can easily channel the dollars acquired to Cuban government enterprises.
In addition, the Castro regime has maintained for years diplomatic and trade relations with a number of nations in the world and there doesn’t seem to have been any improvements in the living standards of the general population. Luxury hotels, built for the enjoyment of foreign tourists, have risen up with all the amenities of modern technology, while the older and poorer sections of Havana are slowly deteriorating and gradually falling apart.
As to the workers’ benefits to be derived from such a policy of attracting tourism to the island, it is important to point out that Cuban government enterprises, which control the economy, including hotels, are the ones who assign Cuban workers to any foreign company operating on the island, keeping approximately 92 cents of each dollar of every worker’s salary.
Something similar can be said about the possibility of granting export credits to a bankrupt Cuban system or opening accounts in government-controlled banks where the threat of expropriation or outright confiscation is still a distinct possibility.
At present, Washington is applying sanctions to Caracas because of Nicolas Maduro’s numerous violations of human rights, a fact that cannot be denied. At the same time, the Obama administration is in the process of initiating secret negotiations with the Castro brothers with the intent to eliminate all sanctions and reestablish full diplomatic relations with Havana.
Has it not occurred to the State Department that in terms of human rights violations Hugo Chavez’s “Revolucion Bolivariana” has not yet reached the level of atrocities committed by the Castro brothers since 1959; a country that has experienced for over 60 years one of the most brutal dictatorships and violators of human rights in the history of Latin America. (4)
What is the reason for such a difference in treatment? Can it be explained in terms of a contradiction in policy objectives? Venezuela is “punished” and Cuba “rewarded”! An irony of history!
Contrary To Western Concepts
An article written by Marc Frank in the Financial Times of London warns foreign businesses to tread carefully as Cuba opens up. The dangers and risks are real, particularly when dealing with the judicial system. Quoting from the British architect Stephen Purvin, Frank describes the Cuban legal system as “Kafkaesque.” He continues: “The legal process followed in Cuba is contrary to any Western concept.”
Not only should the U.S. government take heed of these warnings but also private investors who are anxious to make a quick “buck” on the impoverished island with little attention placed on Cuba’s pitiful human rights situation.
In a recent article in The Washington Post, Natan Sharansky, chairman of the Jewish Agency for Israel, and David Keyes, executive director of Advancing Human Rights, wrote: “The current propensity to neglect dissidents and prop up dictators guarantees that there will be more surprises in the Middle East.” (5)
Can the same thing be said about Cuba’s dictatorship, where the dissidents have been greatly ignored in the secret negotiations carried out between President Obama and the Castro brothers? Given Communist track records of the past, it is difficult to believe in the reliability of Castro’s commitments — if any — to restore freedom on the island.
The “naive” expectations of peace and prosperity for all, as some policy experts reassure us, may turn out to be totally utopian. If so, can the so-called policy experts excuse themselves for their policy failure by saying: “But who could have seen it coming?”
Let American policymakers follow the warnings of St. Matthew’s Gospel when, in no uncertain terms, the apostle wrote: “I send you as sheep in the midst of wolves; so be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.”
Apparently the Obama administration has paid little attention to these wise suggestions. Can the U.S. policymakers be so naive that, despite the recent statements of Raul Castro insisting that he has no interest in changing his Communist policies, they still seem to rely on the so-called good intentions of the Cuban dictator?
At a recent summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders in Costa Rica (CECAL), Raul Castro reiterated that relations with the United States “would not be normalized unless Washington unilaterally lifts the embargo, returns Guantanamo Bay to Cuba, ceases radio and television transmissions beamed into Cuba and make reparations for the half-century long embargo.” (6) Castro also arrogantly demanded that the “Comites de Barrios” be recognized by the United States. (7) What else do we need to hear from the Cuban government?
The United States, on the other hand, has made no explicit demands on the Communist regime in Cuba; not even that it must respect human rights on the island. The Department of State must clearly and unabashedly state that freedom for all political prisoners and respect for the dignity of man are nonnegotiable if future negotiations are to take place.
The Beast
It’s a “sine qua non” condition accepted by all civilized countries in the free world and we have sufficient leverage to request such a justified and legitimate objective, recognized by the United Nations since its founding in San Francisco at the end of World War II. Why don’t we use the abundant leverage that we have?
Pascal, the brilliant 17th-century French mathematician, wrote in his famous work the Pensées: “Man is neither angel nor beast and unhappily whoever wants to act the angel, acts the beast.”
Can this be applied also to nations who in their honest desire to do good and be helpful to others cause, in the long run, more harm than good? That is why in any process of negotiation or policy decisions made by the United States, the four cardinal virtues must be kept in mind. In a very special way, the virtue of prudence must be remembered, so as not to go hastily into agreements or make statements which later are regretted.
Let us always keep in mind Pascal’s famous quote and not be led astray by false utopian ideals which, although well intended, do more harm than good!
+ + +
(Alberto Piedra is the Donald Bentley Professor of Political Economy, The Institute of World Politics, Washington, D.C. He holds doctorates in economics, political economy, and law.)
+ + +
FOOTNOTES
1. See: John Locke, Second Treatise of Government, Indianapolis, 1980.
2. St. Augustine, The City of God, p. 482.
3. In a memorandum for the Head of Executive Agencies, President Obama claimed that his administration “was committed to creating an unprecedented level of openness in government.”
4. Castro, among other horrors, totally destroyed an entire social class (both middle and upper) with outright confiscations of private property, “de facto” forcing millions of Cubans of all social standings to leave the country if they had the chance. Shortly afterward even the possibility of abandoning the country was prohibited, especially in the case of professionals.
Cuba had really become a “Gulag” unilaterally controlled by a harsh and unscrupulous state police. Venezuela, fortunately, has not yet reached this stage, although all indications seem to indicate that it is going in the same direction.
5. Natan Sharansky and David Keyes, The Washington Post, p. A17, February 8, 2015.
6. Mary Anastasia O’Grady, “So How’s That Cuba Deal Going?” The New York Times, p. A11, February 9, 2015.
7. The “Comites de Barrios” are state-run community groups established by the government to defend the revolution. In reality they were created to enforce repression by spying on the neighbors.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress