Cuba’s proposed economic reforms have attracted much attention, the focus falling on plans to redeploy up to one million employees from the state sector to self-employment and small business. The comments mostly reflect a particular ideological perspective; or interpret the reforms through the lens of neoliberal adjustment programmes of the kind familiar to us in the Caricom Caribbean. The proposals, which are contained in 291 points in the Draft Economic and Social Policy Guidelines published in November, need to be considered in their totality; and set in context…
Continue reading
Also published in Stabroek News 20/12/10
Related:
DRAFT Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution (ENGLISH) PDF Format
DRAFT Economic and Social Policy Guidelines for the Party and the Revolution (ENGLISH) HTML Format
Raul Castro’s Speech at Closing Session of the Cuban National Assembly December 18, 2010 (English, illustrated, PDF Format)
‘We are producing a Bonsai in this small island’ An interview with Professor Hugo Pons, head of the Economics Department at the University of Havana
This blog opens a window to the English-speaking world on the debates and changes taking place in Cuba. Regular postings of original translations of selected documents, commentaries and letters to the editor published in Cuba’s revolutionary press; readers’ comments; and a space for discussion and debate among supporters, however critical, of the Cuban Revolution.
PBS Series on Cuba’s Economic Reforms, Health Care system and Medical Diplomacy
I fail to see any difference bettween the new Guidelines and the Gorbachev (proposed) economic reforms of the late 1980s in the former Soviet Union. They remained largely “proposed” because, on the one hand,there was no incentive for bureaucrats running the enterprises to cut waste and, secondly, the more enterprising ones saw this as only an inerim measure to privatisation, with the enterprises becoming their personal capitalist fiefdoms. The latter eventually triumphed under Yeltzin, overthrowing their mentor in the process.
My point is, to institute a Democratic Socialist system within a command system requires a veritable revolution led by the advanced cadres in all spheres of the society and party. But is the Cuban political leadership sufficiently ideologically flexible to re-examine Marx’s concept of the need for a “permanent revolution” or continue to denounce it as Trotskyite heresy?
Dear Ruel,
Obviously I don’t have the answer to your question about the bureaucrats and cadres. However, before you come to hasty judgments about the reforms I would think that the proposals deserve to be studied carefully, and read alongside Raul Castro’s speech of December 18. The question of incentives, for instance, is addressed since enterprises which continually fail to pay their own way will be “called to liquidation”; and non-budgeted entities will not be entitled (as of right) to state subsidies.
Incidentally, I don’t see anything in the Guidelines about introducing a “Democratic Socialist” system. You seem to be assessing the proposals according to a model that you have unilaterally imported into the discourse; and one that is undefined and whose content has been the subject of unending debate and contention in Left circles for decades.
Also I don’t see anything that contradicts the idea of “Permanent Revolution”. To the contrary, Raul’s speech contains many admissions about past errors, the importance of reflecting on and learning from past experience, the need for constant effort to improve (’perfect’) the Cuban socialist system, and a declaration that Cuba is entering uncharted territory. That is hardly the mind-set that prevails in a rigid or inflexible system!
Cheers, Norman
Dear Editor,
The article ‘Cuba’s Economic Paradigm Shift: A Work in Progress’ (‘In the Diaspora’ SN, December 20) was an interesting take on developments in Cuba; we wait to see how it all pans out. Good luck to the Cuban people and one hopes this brings about some measure of breathing space for them.
I’m all for with Cubans coming up with Cuban solutions. While nothing Alissa Trotz and Norman Girvan say can be seriously disputed, the problem is what they don’t say: that enormous pachyderm in the Caribbean lefty living room – you know, what to do/think about Cuba. I do have a problem with eminent Anglo-Caribbean academics trying continually to tread softly and uncritically just a tad too much on Cuba from the relative material and democratic comforts of North America and the Anglo-Caribbean where we enjoy basic rights/are allowed to actually choose who governs us, be openly critical of them in public and get rid of them if they don’t deliver results, unlike the Cuban populace who just don’t seem worthy of these goodies themselves, poor things.
It all seems rather a bit of a let-down for the rest of us who respect the objectivity honed by years and years of study/work in tertiary institutions, that distinguishes our professors from the ordinary people. In other words the professors, are effectively being paid and recognised not to have a one-sided, uncritical takes on things; criticism is the lifeblood of the intellectual – always enquiring, always objective, always scientific, as far as it’s possible to be so in political analysis, and never seemingly taking sides. Otherwise we might as well all give up, pack up, turn off the lights and head off to North Korea (or Cuba for that matter) where they do propaganda rather better.
I am not sure, by the way, whether attending a conference located in Cuba, fantastic though it probably was to be there, but that was sanctioned by the Cuban regime was ever going to be a totally balanced affair. I’m curious to hear whether the views of Cubans not allied with the regime were heard or were solicited from the conference organisers.
Over and over again, Caribbean academics’ refusal to even acknowledge that ordinary peoples’ basic human rights in Cuba might actually be violated in ways which we would not wish on our worst enemies, and that it is most likely not all the work of some evil and dastardly plan hatched in the bowels of the Washington beast by the CIA, Barack Obama or the remnants of the Florida Batista lobby, seems a particularly tough one to swallow. Why, I have no idea, but what I can say is that doing this analytical fancy footwork is a bit undignified in 2010 as they demand consistency. It must get a bit intellectually taxing and wearing at times, and can ultimately lead to that well known pesky podiatric condition: the Achilles heel.
Interestingly, when it comes to governance and democracy in the Anglo-Caribbean our intelligentsia are quite stridently vocal in their critiques and more power to them, I say. Kamla, Bruce and Bharrat must be peeved about all the grief they get, but one would like to think that deep inside, they recognise that this is a good thing and is the essence of the democratic deficit that we all take as a given. They are the servants and we are the people who put them there.
When it comes to Cuba, however, bring on the violins, the congas and the ‘Vivas!’ This ideological rumba love-in is in full swing and shows no sign of waning, even after all these years. (I must admit I like it too – a real David and Goliath story, and we of course all root for the little plucky guy, naturally. I myself make it my business to educate people about the sustained, yet ultimately unsustainable US aggression against Cuba. We all know how terrible the embargo has been for Cuba and any criticism of this is fully justified. We all long for the day when the Americans realise how useless, petty, vindictive and needlessly cruel and criminal the whole thing is.) We don’t need to be left wing to recognise and admit that it was morally wrong.
But as we say in the Caribbean, three wrongs don’t make a right, so why be dogmatic? It’s time to take off the rose-tinted spectacles. By leaving the impression of one-sidedness and over-enthusiasm for the everything that the Central Committe does in Cuba with their “brave, revolutionary and heroic” school of thought, our intellectuals do themselves, their profession, their audience, and the Cuban people with whom they claim to have solidarity, a grave disservice.
I wonder if either Dr Girvan or Dr Trotz (both of whom I admire enormously) and others on the Caribbean left can even bring themselves to publicly support the men and women –journalists and fellow academics – who languish in Cuban jails (some recently on hunger strike) because all they ever wanted was not to be accused of being Yankee stooges but simply to be seen as ordinary people fighting for the right to enjoy the basic freedoms that we take for granted ourselves, and have enjoyed in the Anglo-Caribbean for decades. Why ignore or brush aside these things simply because we all adored the heroics of Comrade Fidel a long time ago? Why can’t we do both? It will advance us as individuals and societies, not to mention, the future of all Cubans enormously if we can hone this particular skill.
History moves on though, and so also should we all. What about the good ol’ concept of critical analysis? By all means give praise where praise is due, but please for the sake of intellectual probity, the professors should be a bit more circumspect, balanced and objective in their analyses. If they are not, they run the risk of tarnishing otherwise flawless academic reputations.
Yours faithfully,
Ramona Cabral Guevara
Hello Ramona,
An interesting comment. You seem to have no problem with our commentary on Cuba’s economic reforms, in fact you say that nothing in it can be seriously disputed. But then you then you go off on an extended criticism off what we have not said, about alleged human rights violations in Cuba.
You seem to have accepted, without any attempt at critical evaluation of your own, the standard accounts on this subject that are prevalent in the Western media. Perhaps you are unaware that these accounts have been seriously challenged by respected independent scholars and other observers. Many of these have been published on this blog.
Among their findings are that the majority of the individuals to which you refer have, by their own admission, been in receipt of funding from the United States government; which has, as we are sure you know, an official policy of promoting regime change in Cuba. (Incidentally, you fail to mention that most of individuals concerned have recently been freed, under an agreement brokered by the Catholic Church).
They also point in that in most countries of the world, receipt of funding from a foreign power with the explicit purpose of promoting the overthrow of the government and constitution is a very serious crime indeed—in many countries, punishable by death. Certainly, in the United States a known agent of Al Qaeda would hardly be at large as long as it takes to read these words.
These commentaries have been painstakingly researched and are meticulously referenced in their sources. Among them are the following (all at http://www.normangirvan.info):
Cuba and the Virtue of Dialogue, Salim Lamrani
Conversations with Cuban Blogger Yoani Sanchez, Salim Lamrani
Cuba, the Corporate Media, and the Suicide of Orlando Zapata Tamayo, Salim Lamrani
Contradictions of Cuban blogger Yoani Sanchez, Salim Lamrani
On The Cuban Dissidents, Atilio Boron
We would invite you most sincerely to visit these commentaries and to consider carefully the information contained therein. If you have any questions or differences of opinion with what they say, please post them, and Norman will ensure that they are brought to the attention of the authors.
For Norman, speaking personally, I can say that in my frequent interactions with Cuban scholars over the years, I have found them more than willing to discuss the mistakes of their government and the failings of their system in academic meetings. Sometimes these appear in academic publications and on-line discussions.
They make a clear distinction, however, between critical debate within the established structures; and accepting money from external sources with the purpose of promoting regime change in Cuba.
They are also very sensitive to the possible use of any public criticism they might make, as a political weapon by others who have an entirely different political agenda.
To close, no system is perfect, and we would be the last to make such a claim for Cuba. Neither would the Cubans, for that matter.
Our own view is that the most important measure that could be taken to promote greater freedom of public expression in Cuba, is the lifting of the illegal and inhumane 50-year old blockade by the United States; the abandonment of the official U.S. policy of promoting regime change; and the ending of the U.S policy of harbouring within its borders persons who are known terrorists against the Cuban government and people. The last includes an individual who has boasted of his role in the bombing of a Cubana Airlines jet off the coast of Barbados in 1976; in which 73 innocent youngsters died, including 11 Guyanese.
We trust that you share this view. And we look forward to receiving your comments on the substance of our commentary.
Wishing you all that’s good for 2011.
Sincerely, Norman Girvan & Alissa Trotz
P.S. Another highly infomative analysis on the subject of “Cuba and the numner of poltical prisoners” is at http://www.huffingtonpost.com/salim-lamrani/cuba-and-the-number-of-po_b_689845.html
Dear Ramona,
It’s interesting to read your comments, but I am perplexed by your remark that
“I do have a problem with eminent Anglo-Caribbean academics trying continually to tread softly and uncritically just a tad too much on Cuba from the relative material and democratic comforts of North America and the Anglo-Caribbean where we enjoy basic rights/are allowed to actually choose who governs us, be openly critical of them in public and get rid of them if they don’t deliver results, unlike the Cuban populace who just don’t seem worthy of these goodies themselves, poor things.”
There is a key fallacy here: that we are ” … allowed to actually choose who governs us, be openly critical of them in public and get rid of them if they don’t deliver results …”
Is that how it looks to you? My own experience and reading suggest otherwise. Regarding leaders, we in Australia, as well as other Anglophone and non-Anglophone “democratic” nations are given a set of options, all of which fit within the acceptable parameters of the ruling elites. The bottom line is that we have, in the US, UK, Canada and Australia, for example, leaders and an overwhelming proportion of senior legislators who have been repeatedly filtered through the publicity sieve by the major global corporations, and seem pretty well assured of continuing support, direct and indirect, financial and organisational. The argument is well put by Noam Chomsky, in “Manufacturing Consent: a film version of his argument can be downloaded from
http://www.archive.org/details/manufacturing_consent
Your vote and mine give us about the same amazing power as when I voted for my High School President. Of course there are exceptions to the rule, just like there are exceptions to losing money on lottery tickets, but as for getting rid of the players, the Big Players in my country and possibly yours are the major stockholders in major global corporations. How much stock do you own in Lockheed-Martin and General Electric and Dow? My guess is that you are not a major stockholder; in such case, your vote and actions are very unlikely to affect the actions of the board of directors.
I have yet to see a careful analysis of the Cuban electoral system, and how it is influenced by The Big Players, but is seems to me that an awful lot of the spittle and furore slung at Cuba’s one-party system flies in ignorance of the functioning of a one-party democracy, which may well deliver more environmentally sustainable results without exporting its savage tribal retributions to faraway lands: remote places like Afghanistan, removed enough from ordinary everyday lives that NATO ally citizens can view their military’s missionary work through rose-coloured glasses.
The mainstream media can do a superb job of making it look, to the majority of the populace of a country like Australia like Democracy is Gaining Ground in Afghanistan, when in fact, much of what is going on is indiscriminate extrajudicial killing, in the name of a War on Terror. What an ironic name for a war, which likely generates far more terrorists than it exterminates. Perhaps I should get out my rose-coloured glasses.
Cuba’s political system merits a dispassionate analysis of the human rights (say as listed by the UN Charter of Human Rights) that are fostered.
Your main concern seems to be Freedom of Expression for Cubans, and that is what is mostly read about in the US and other mainstream media, about human rights in Cuba. As though Freedom of The Press is the paramount need of hungry people, homeless people, sick people. As though the most crying need of a drug addict’s family in your country and mine is the right to choose between the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post and the New York Times, etc, to read over their breakfast, and decide who to vote for, next election. Meanwhile, at US domestic airports and elsewhere in that country, US civil rights are being steadily eroded. My experience travelling through the US last year reminded me of the tales I heard of travelling through Soviet Russia, and that was before the Underwear Bomber flew into Chicago.
Perhaps you know of an incisive, dispassionate, peer-reviewed study of the Cuban electoral system, preferably published in English and available on the internet. If you do, I would be interested. If you have something you think approaches that mark, but has failings because its academic author is treading a bit softly, on the subject of Cuba, I would still be interested.
Dear Alissa and Norman,
Thank you for the comments on my response to your article. Points are well taken, but you seem to have made my case for me. I will try to address the issues you raise one by one.
Yes, I did say that no one can seriously dispute what you said about the economic reforms and re-iterate this mainly because I don’t feel suitably professionally qualified to credibly comment on, let alone dispute what the plan entails. This is as you rightly said is a work in progress, ie, everyone awaits to see how it’s implemented and hear/read the feedback down the line. I don’t think this point is controversial and I leave it to the economists like Norman to interpret it for us, with balanced critical analysis as a caveat, I might add.
You then go on to infer that I’m also guilty of not applying that same critical evaluation myself by believing the standard accounts in the Western media. I did as you rightly said go off on that extended criticism of what you didn’t say because that, you see, was the whole point of my engaging you. The opportunity presented itself and I took it and again apologies if I didn’t focus on the relative merits of the economic reforms. As the famous saying goes, ‘Context is everything’. These economic reforms are going to be played out within the wider international context of the embargo of course, but also within a national socio-political context and we ignore this at our peril.
My essential point is that unless the Caribbean ‘left’ addresses head-on the thorny, but glaringly-ignored issue of human rights in Cuba and curb the standard knee-jerk, regime-sanctioned and Granma-diffused thoughts about US dirty tricks you run the risk of being accused of dealing in a less than even-handed way with Cuba and (I notice) increasingly Chavez’ Venezuela.
My concern as I said before was with this seemingly rose-coloured view of the Cuban government and its actions that I have observed for decades. Its a truly amazing phenomenon as it has even survived glastnost and perestroika which is no mean feat (not even communism in the former USSR and its satellite states, all save North Korea did) and says something about the abiding power and significance of revolutionary Cuba and its significant achievements on what remains of the global ‘left and its imagination. We seem unable to awake, never mind mentally separate ourselves just a bit from the alluring dreams of the Revolution and Cuba’s heroic roles in international post-independence liberation struggles.
Don’t get me wrong. I am left-leaning enough to know the grim history of US tricksterism in Latin America: exploding cigars, Contras, Pinochet, Embargo and we could go on and on. However I re-iterate: three wrongs don’t make a right. Two and two will never add up to five, no matter how much one wishes it to be so. We all, Anglo-Caribbean intellectuals and ordinary people alike, have a duty not only to say so, but to support rather than rubbish the reputations of those Cubans in the surreal Cuban battlegrounds and trenches fighting invisible battles that many of us never had to fight: for their right to freedoms of expression and self-realisation that only they know first-hand in their homeland. And I’m sorry but state-sanctioned visits to/conferences in Cuba where everything is stage-managed and scrutinised and little or no dissent is allowed, or social free time is allowed for free-range interactions with locals who are not apparatchiks, are not going to reveal these invisible beings and their struggles.
I cannot help but think, sadly, that if there exists a Cuban Nelson Mandela looking for external support in his struggle for his peoples’ aspirations for basic human rights today in a one party state that opposes these as bourgeois values: freedom of expression and the freedom to have opposing views- rights we ourselves all enjoy - it seems to me that he would be hard-pressed to find it from his Anglo-Caribbean intellectual brethren. He would most likely be accused of being a subversive and a terrorist, be hauled in front of a closed kangaroo court, criminalised and then sent down for a couple decades interspersed with some choice sessions of ominous-sounding ‘re-education’ and ‘re-habilitation’.
We have definitely come full circle in the developing world when we can comfortably rubbish/explain away claims about violations of essential human rights because we’re kind of loyal to the ideals of the original revolutionaries, actually. The regime brooks no political opposition whatsoever and says rights are not violated, so we parrot that its not violated. Where’s the critical analysis in that? Where is the intellectual responsibility/role in that? Has Amnesty International got it wrong? Are the EU totally hoodwinked and in hock to the Miami/Washington lobby? I somehow doubt it.
I did look at the posts by Lamrani and I was not best impressed I have to say. Noted academic he may well be but his bias (as against balance which I thought academics should stand for) is clearly evident. His surreal and frankly lame attempts in his interview with the Cuban blogger, Yoani Sanchez to paint her as gullible, deceitful, inconsistent and subversive, his takes on the dead hunger striker Tamayo and Guillermo Farinas (fought to liberate Angola, father fought with Che in the Congo) who was two weeks ago denied a visa to receive the Sakharov Prize from the EU Presidency in Strasbourg for his numerous hunger strikes for personal freedoms and rights in Cuba, and the character assassination of the mother of the dead hunger striker and the Mothers in White group is beyond the pale and would be fine in Albania in the 1950s, not laughable as they are happening in academia in 2010. George Orwell, enthusiastic but ultimately disillusioned leftist himself would probably not be too surprised by the likes of Lamrani as well as the Tim Anderson Monthly Review hatchet job on Human Rights Watch.
Your own seeming moral equivalency between the likes of Yoanna Sanchez, Tamayo and Farinas and the others in the Cuban context plotting state fairness, and the freedom to criticize, with Al Qaeda jihadists of all people, plotting death to the Great Satans of the West is a bit strange. I think I know what you’re trying to say but to equate a bunch of religious fanatics wanting to kill loads of innocent people like ourselves for global jihad and divine beneficence (virgins and the like) to men and women non-violently advocating for greater personal rights and freedoms for themselves and their countrymen seems odd to say the least. The reprehensible trade embargo aside, I think you will agree that the dilemmas of the US government v Al Qaeda and the Cuban Government v Human rights advocates are a tad different. The former is religious fanatical nihilism, the latter is simply about advocating for more freedom to live and breathe easily in the land of your birth (see UN HR Charter).
Judging from the Cuban government’s response to the latter, its a sad thing when they feel threatened by an inalienable right to say what one thinks without fear. In response to Lamrani et al, I would go as far as saying that we should arguably trust the opinion of those Cuban dissidents who say their rights are violated, and those independent human rights professionals who corroborate it, like Amnesty International and HRW certainly AT LEAST AS MUCH AS the affirmations of non-independent Cuban academics at state-sponsored conferences who we might be forgiven for thinking are only relaying the views of the regime, and some left-leaning academics who have their own biases and still idealise and idolise the Revolution and its leaders without caveat. Its a fair cop.
Norman’s point that the Cuban government acknowledges that it has made mistakes and have noted the failings of the system is a good start. Having them appear in academic publications and on-line discussions limits coverage though, don’t you think, in relatively internet-limited Cuba? How about telling the Cuban people through the state media for starters. Or better yet, have a dialogue with their ‘opponents’ and let the people decide. Equally, this idea of debates being allowed but WITHIN (my emphasis) established structures seems another way of saying, er, sorry, no debates. Its a no-brainer: how can you have critical debate on elements of the system WITHIN the maligned system itself that’s the problem in the first place? It’s just not going to happen and people will find ways of making themselves heard, through hunger strikes, protests, blogs and the like, in the absence of things we take for granted and they lack, like political parties, rallies, two (or more) party-elections etc (See UN Human Rights Charter again).
Finally the idea that they don’t want to actually criticize themselves in public because it might be fodder for those with different agendas (regime change for example) is simply laughable if it weren’t so…well…Orwellian. You can’t make this stuff up. So that’s it…er..then…we don’t air our dirty washing in public because we might get attacked and be overthrown. I guess its the sort of line one would expect from a ruling cabal in power for 50 years, and not even countenancing the ideas practiced by the vast majority of states around the world, ie, that having political oppositions and a critical media are a good thing, actually.
I would recommend some reading myself: the UN Human Rights Charter is a good place to start, followed by Christopher Hitchens’ chapter on Orwell and the ‘left’ in his book Orwell’s victory, and Animal Farm and 1984 of course. Both authors have impeccable Marxist credentials. Then, for good measure, try another disillusioned Marxist, the eminent historian Tony Judt’s Past Imperfect- French Intellectuals 1944-56 on the pitfalls of intellectuals defending the indefensible in this case, the French intelligentsia and Stalinism. The geographical, numerical and time contexts are different but the philosophical core message is the same.
I too wish you both a happy new year and hopefully one filled with increased openness, insight and recognition of ideas that might at first glance seem to run counter-intuitive, but are not at all mutually exclusive to your own in relation to Cuba.
Yours ever
Ramona Cabral-Guevara
With apologies and profound thanks to Norman for occupying valuable space on his blog…
Dear Robert,
Thanks for your comments on mine. You and I are a one on Chomsky and manufacturing consent and I would be the firt to agree that lib democracies do seem to go through the motions and that real power lies in the hands of a few. One of my fav books at Uni was ‘Who governs America?’ and reading about the Duponts and the military industrial complex was fascinating and deeply disturbing…and still relevant as we can see from the dispatches from Haliburtonworld and the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan etc.
You’re also right that I’m not a large stockholder. Indeed I’m not even a small one. Its so bad if a stock hit me on the head I wouldnt even know its a stock. So, yes, I agree, we are effectively in the hands of those who control the stocks and the reins of power.
…And yet…and yet…this does nto obviate the need for respect for basic human rights for all. As our good friend Chomsky himself says ‘if we don’t believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don’t believe in it at all’. Voltaire centuries earlier said famously ‘I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it’. Even Mandela who recognised the role of Cuba in the South African liberation struggle himself said ‘…for to be free is not merely to cast off one’s chains, but to live in a way that respects and enhances the freedoms of others’.
I agree that the world - faced as it is with finite resources, growing population and largely growth-driven climate change problems, can learn a thing or two about how to live sustainably from Cuba and other progressive developing countries. I believe that this is where the ‘left’ can really come into its own and play a leading role. Growth-driven models are being questioned more and more and social justice within a sustainable policy framework with all social/political rights ensured is going to be explored more and more. I would myself tout Cuba’s world famous preventive health system, but also Brazil’s ability to do this within a relatively social democratic framework where peoples’ rights are not trampled. This is where we on the ‘left’ should be expending our energies, not still trying to defend what I believe to be the indefensible big blot on the Cuban revolutionary experiment, global aid and health progressiveness aside: that it came with a cost to peoples’ fundamental rights.
The funny thing about all of this, in spite of the Embargo, is that - as the Wikileaks cables on US/Cubarelations show, they do collaborate well on anti-narco-trafficking,both pointing the finger at the Jamaican authorities for not doing enough.
I do not share your view, b the way, that an oppressive American state is emerging just because they want to check that our underpants are bomb-free - we all have to thank the jihadists for that!- as I don’t know about you, but I’d rather submit my smelly shoes in a tray for inspection to a big, burly, unhumorous US customs man/woman at 2am in any US airport THAN be blown to smithereens on my way to see good ol’ Aunty Dora in Boston.
Its not great, but threat to democracy and freedom, it’s not. I would rather think that they would like me to actually arrive to see dear Aunt Dora,grim and miserable though they may seem at these airports. I wouls also not like my vital stats to show up on that scary body scanner, but there’s the price we pay for living in the 21st century and having relatives more than a camel’s ride away…
On whether hunger, homelessness, and illness should matter more than freedom of expression, to vote for who I like, to say I hate the PM out loud in a park if I feel to, to gather in groups to protest against policies that stifle my life, then yes, I would say its not in their hands to pick and choose what they’d like us to have but for us as individuals to have a say in the matter ourselves, otherwise we’re into Big Brother territory, I’m afraid…
Finally, sorry I have to disappoint but I have no idea where one can get books that don’t tread too softly on Cuba (perhaps Alissa and Norman can help)as I can well understand the utterly beguiling simplicity of turning up unannounced in Havana, jumping in a taxi and heading off into the countryside to interview campesinos in the lunch hour on how the last 50 years has been for them, without really noticing that guy in dark shades who’s been tailing my tazi all the way and now paces the corner opposite where me and the campesino are chatting…Seriously though, I would also value some help on this question, rose-tinted spectacles or no-rose tinted spectacles…
I am saddened by the binary nature of this discourse. I am a great admirer of the economic and social accomplishments of the Cuban model. Their health system is extremely impressive and their risk reduction and disaster management policies are a model for the region. I was pleased to hear from Norman and Alissa, what is being planned in the economic sphere. I was however taken aback by the statement that while this economic policy was discussed at all levels, the London student protests were taking place. The implication seemed to be that groups in Cuba who may have disagreed could actually protest in the way that the London students were protesting. In my view, the one major achilles heel in the Cuban model is the deficit in political rights. This is not to suggest that the Barbadian model or Trinidadian model is without flaws. It is to say that they all have strengths and deficits, which need to be systematically addressed if the systems are to effectively serve the people and be sustainable. Grenada taught us some hard lessons about the need to be mindful, balanced and constructively critical. There is no doubt that there are forces seeking to undermine Cuba, but those external forces gain most traction when there are major internal contradictions that can be exploited. Cuba and those who give credit to its immense accomplishments will ignore those internal contradictions at its peril.
Its heartening to see an eminent Caribbean academic and womens rights activist like Rosina Wiltshire agree that we really ought to be on the side of critical engagement in relation to Cuba (and I would add, Venezuela) and indeed any state showing authoritarian tendencies. I was loath to mention the lessons of Grenada in my responses but she’s right: our Caribbean academics need to be particularly mindful of the contradictions especially after that harrowing experience, and more importantly say so/stand up and be counted for posterity’s sake but also more importantly for the victims of the political oppression themselves! This does not mean that one should be automatically accused of being anti-Cuba;, it simply means that we are mature and wise enough (and have seen enough of the world) to know that even the best of ideals and policies can give way - if left unchecked - to authoritarianism and tyranny which can trample on human beings all too easily. This is something that should not be dismissed lightly because we happen to like the personalities, their ideals and their policies.
I do hope that the dialogue can continue and would love to hear what Dr Brian Meeks, Rupert Lewis, Trevor Munroe, Rupert Roopnaraine and other eminent Caribbean academics (including Norman and Alissa themselves) have to say on this matter.
Sincerely
Ramona Cabral Guevara
My poem may have something to do with what you are discussing here. It was written when the so-called moral war was declared. I tried to send it to the world but did not know its email address.
“No Weapos of Mass Destruction”
This war is Bush fault
not Bin Laden’s.
But Bin Laden is also
to blame.
And all of we silent complicit,
And guilty as rhangate.
“Rhangate” is a Barbadian euphemism for that other Bajan word that anyone who knows the Barbadian culture. It is quite a nasty (but useful as it can take just about any part of speech) word.
Jah guide, bless, protect and enlighten as we seek out a new year on this website.
margaret kawamuinyo
UPDATE: Latest news today: Guillermo Farinas, the Cuban human rights campaigner/Sakharov Prize winner arrested three times in two days… I imagine that the Cuban government might be looking on a bit nervously at what is happening to authoritarianism (yes, even American-supported ones) in the Arab world hence Sr Farinas’ busy appointment schedule with the police. The Jasmine Revolution throws a spanner in the works (so to speak) of all of our grand theories and theses of how and why people behave and what motivates them: economic reality, yes, but the fight against tyranny; grinding poverty, yes but the need for hope, change and freedom that they can believe in, to paraphrase the Obama quote.
No one seeing these images unfold cannot help but be moved by the thirst for freedom, hope and jobs and an end to the corrupt and oppressive status quo in Tunisia and now Egypt…brings back memories of the fall of the Berlin Wall and the collapse of the USSR and its empire. The US-backed Egyptian and Jordanian regimes must be quaking in their boots. Re-inforces the idea that freedom is not an ideology; it’s about people, individuals deciding that they no longer fear water cannon or armies on the street or secret police or death…I remember the debates at UWI about ‘evolution’ or ‘revolution’ as possible ways to bring about change. These are revolutions without leaders or ideology or even that new bogeyman Islamic fundamentalism (the latter no doubt a big shock to the old style Arabists at the State Department and the Foreign Office (UK) Orwell himself would be proud…
I have been browsing online more than three hours lately, yet I by no means discovered any fascinating article like yours. It’s lovely worth enough for me. In my opinion, if all website owners and bloggers made just right content as you probably did, the web might be much more useful than ever before.
CubaForum (German) http://forum.kuba-entdecken.de