For those interested in Cuba, the Miami Herald has been publishing excellent reports on daily-life in Cuba from their secret “man in La Habana” (could very well be a woman, but alas, that is not the phrase). The latest installment, in yesterday’s online edition, covers many Cubans’ unwillingness to work given the meager salaries and distasteful job opportunities (see article here http://www.miamiherald.com/581/story/552964.html). As I read the article, four points came to mind:
1. Cuba’s economic hardship is NOT a result of the embargo
“''I am not going to tell you something different. There are jobs here in Cárdenas where I live. Doing what? Cleaning hospitals for 150 pesos [$7] a month,'' said Loraicys, a single mother. ``For 150 pesos, I would rather stay home with my kid. I am willing to work really hard -- but not for nothing in return.''
“''Unfortunately there is not an inconsiderable segment of our society that wants to live without working and considers that through the black market, it will have everything by living off of others,'' Granma editor Lázaro Barredo wrote in a recent editorial.”
All news out of Cuba is consistent on two fronts. First, the Island has more than enough human and natural resources to be a solid middle-income country, regardless of the embargo. Second, Cuba does not achieve this due to the policies of its government. The government simultaneously fails to provide real jobs that would provide sustenance to its people (see other posts on the ability of Cuban’s to afford basic staples) and scorns those Cubans who operate in the black market to feed their families. Is this an implicit policy to starve the Cuban people? What does this have to do with the embargo?
2. Remittances can be a powerful tactical tool, but are also very risky
“Eduardo, 30, a stagehand who got his first job four years ago, said most of his friends worked for the first time when they were in their late 20s -- after emigrating to Florida. ''Why was I going to work? The money they would pay me was not going to meet my needs,'' he said. ``My mother in Orlando sent me $100 a month, and with that I was set.''”
Remittances have received much attention lately, thanks to CANF’s official position and Obama’s proposal to ease restrictions. As the quote above indicates, the prospect of a Cuban society economically independent of the state is tantalizing, and could indeed spur the change we all hope for. However, success via this avenue critically depends on speed and magnitude. How fast can Cubans become independent via remittances and what portion of the population can realistically be expected to achieve it. Move to slowly and the regime will adjust as it has countless times in the past, supporting the regime without making a dent. Achieve only 10-15% penetration and the “wealthy” Cubans will be ostracized, taxed, and harassed as always before. They will lose both their influence within Cuba and their ideological strength internationally.
3. Cuban generated data is worthless – how good is that healthcare system?
“Officially, Cuban government figures show its unemployment rate is just 1.9 percent, the lowest in Latin America. At the same time, government statistics show just 4.8 million of the 6.7 million working-age people are ''economically active.'' And a survey conducted by the state-run Juventud Rebelde newspaper showed that just in Guantánamo province, on the eastern tip of the island, there were 18 times more unemployed people than official figures reflected.”
This is a small example of how the regime manipulates data, especially when it communicates it to “outsiders” (i.e, the UN and those “enlightened” observers such as Michael Moore). The regime will manipulate data however it must to maintain its propaganda. Surprising that the world is so inclined to believe the Cuban healthcare and education miracles.
4. The regime does not care about ideology, just survival
“''For the first time, it is clearly and precisely stated that a salary does not have a limit, that the roof of a salary depends on productivity,'' Terrero said, according to The Associated Press. He added that he did not view this as a violation of socialism, but rather ``from each according to his work to each according to his ability.''”
This twisting of the communist ideal (to each according to his needs, from each according to his abilities) demonstrates that the regime cares little about its people. Time and time again, the regime will change its philosophy, policies, and practices to ensure it stays in power. Surprising yet again how so many external observers continue to credit the government with ideological purity and a focus on its people.
Happy to hear other’s view on these or other points.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
30 comments:
So if everything is so bad in Cuba, why should visits be limited there. Wouldn't you want everything to be shown so all illusions could be stripped away?
Not long ago the New York Philharmonic went to North Korea to perform. Cuba is the only place on earth where people from the United States need a permission slip from the federal government to go for a visit.
What are they so afraid that we'll see? How bad life supposedly is there? Of course Cuba has any number of problems, but somehow the society manages to work despite problems.
The Cubans have begun to speak pretty openly about their problems, as the usually very unsympathetic National Public Radio put it in a recent feature:
NPR STORY:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=
Why can't everyone from the United States go to Cuba and talk to these journalists if they want to? Those who don't want to go to Cuba are, of course, free to stay home. But those who want to go, whether Cuba-American or not, should be free to do so.
That's what Hector Palacios told the HERALD after Obama's speech to the CANF luncheon. Think about it.
Is Cuba even worse than North Korea which also has a one-party political system, or Saudi Arabia, which has a NO-party political system?
Thank you.
Hi Walter,
Thanks for your post.
You seem fairly knowledgeable of the issue and are likely to be familiar with the argument - mainly, that this serves as a financial bonanza for the Cuban Regime and facilitates the oppression of Cubans - so I won't dwell on it.
For full disclosure, I am not intimately aware of US policy towards travel to North Korea, Iran, etc., so cannot compare/contrast to Cuba.
That said, it is pretty clear that the distance, cost, and enormous cultural differences between a N. Korea/Iran and the US serves as a sufficiently strong travel deterrent. None of these would exist for Cuba, and if allowed, Cuba would be swarmed with tourists spending gobs of US Dollars. For this, and many other reasons, comparing Cuba with other nasty regimes is usually not fruitful.
I'm sure you're right on US tourists - given the chance, many Americans will visit the Island to get a sense of reality and inform their opinions. However, the reality is that the vast majority would visit to sit on the beach and marvel at the 1950s cars still on the streets - as Europeans, Canadians, and South Americans do on a yearly basis. The net-net effect would be to have a few better informed Americans and a vastly richer Cuban government.
Additionally, for Americans interested in visiting the Island to better understand Cuba, there is plenty of opportunity to do so, as the thousands of Americans visiting Cuba every year can attest. You can do this both legally and illegally, as so many do via Mexico and Canada.
Axel; while I agree with you that most American tourists will be happy just sipping mojitos on the beach (as they are wont to do anywhere from Cancun to Thailand) I have to wonder how "vastly richer" would the regime be.
There are only two ways to achieve this; either by increasing capacity or by charging more because of added demand. Now we should ask ourselves: Does Cuba has that much available capacity not filled by Canadians or Europeans? If not, how fast can they add more rooms?
As far as charging more: Cuba's tourism infrastructure is frankly crap, compared to any comparable Caribbean destination. A 5 star hotel in Cuba is a 3 star in the Bahamas. Car rentals are badly managed and expensive. Transportation and communications inside the island are bad. Retail is a joke. Theft is rampant at the airport and hotels. Bureucracy is a pain in the ass to navigate. Google around, you'll see Cuba does not have the greatest reputation as a travel destination.
This is annecdotal of course: I was in Barcelona and Montreal recently, and was looking at travel ads in the paper, out of curiosity. Packages to Cuba were among the cheapest priced. Many people told me something I remember from when I was living in the island; the quality of tourism that goes to Cuba is the kind that can't afford to go anywhere else.
I think maybe there will be a sudden influx of American visitors, but that many? Exactly how many Americans will say "hey, we can go sip margaritas in Cancun or daiquiris in Cuba, let's go to the crappy communist country?". No, I think allowing American tourism wil be more symbolic than anything. Powerful symbolism, but could backfire as well.
Thanks for the comment, Alex.
It really is true that no one from the United States of America needs any permission from the U.S. government to go to any country in the entire world...EXCEPT CUBA.
Apparently you haven't been to Cuba. I haven't been in about four months, but have been there 15-20 times in the past nine years.
Which will you believe: the stories that say Cuban tourism is down and the hotels are all empty, or your account which says they don't have enough rooms and the quality is bad?
The problem is that under US law, we're not free to go if we simply want to see it for ourselves.
Personally, I stay rather rarely in hotels in Cuba, preferring to stay with friends as much as possible. I go as a working journalist and writer, but simply don't care for hotels. Here in the United States I also prefer to stay with friends and families.
Anyway, have you considered what the Cuban dissidents are saying? Have you read the letters which the Ladies in White and Miriam Leiva and Oscar Espinosa Chepe, and Hector Palacios have been saying?
Let me know, I'll be happy to post them here for you.
Hi Alex,
I like your economic analyses of the potential impact, though I disagree with the conclusion. Really, how much capacity they currently have now is not relevant. If they have excess capacity, then that capacity will be filled-up. If they're at capacity, the higher demand will drive prices up. Either way, more Dollars for Cuba - and the price effect alone could easily be a double what it is now (assuming limited current capacity).
I also vaguely remember a Herald article some time back which said Cuba was on a building spree, though I could be wrong.
Walter, I am familiar with the general “spirit” of what they said, but have not read the details. Happy to read if you post. I’m also familiar with what the Castro brothers have been saying for 20 yrs – lift the embargo! Allow unencumbered travel! Etc. etc. My instinctive reaction is to be hesitant in giving them what they’re asking for.
Additionally, this discussion normally ignores the example of Venezuela. They do not have an embargo, enjoy free travel, unlimited remittances, etc….yet that did not stop Chavez from moving sharply towards dictatorship (and indeed, failed to officially become one by the slimmest of margins). If these policies cannot prevent a government from becoming a dictatorship, how do we expect them to actively remove a dictator?
PS - I see those travel ads too when I travel, and always get annoyed. Sort of like when you're walking the streets of Ko Samui and all you see are Che t-shirts.
PSS - I like "immersive" travel, but really can't get myself away from the hotels. I find a little peace and quite invaluable at night!!
Walter, one more thing. The NPR link you posted was incomplete...can you repost?
Thanks
Here's the NPR link. Sorry!
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=90892712
Here's what Hector Palacios told the MIAMI HERALD at the luncheon for Obama which the CANF sponsored:
In an interview with The Miami Herald seconds after Obama finished speaking at the Intercontinental Hotel in downtown Miami, Palacios said he welcomed the Democratic Party presidential candidate’s remarks on Cuba.
“He spoke about Cuba and that for me has been very important,’’ Palacios said, adding: “And what Obama intends to do about Cuba includes many things that I share. This is not the moment to fence in the people of Cuba. This is the moment to open the doors so Cubans and Americans can go there. We cannot subject the people of Cuba, after 50 years of war, to one more war and we cannot continue killing each other. Changes in Cuba are taking place and people have not realized this. Fidel Castro is no longer there but the people are and the people are stronger than ever.’’
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2008/05/exiles-cheer-ob.html
PALACIOS AT THE OBAMA LUNCHEON
http://miamiherald.typepad.com/cuban_colada/2008/05/
exiles-cheer-ob.html
I apologize. The problem is in the formatting with the blog. I did put the right URL for the NPR story up.
Try accessing it this way:
http://tinyurl.com/3swxv6
But of course it matters. Cuba has about 45,000 rooms for 1.7 million visitors (2006 figures). That's not a lot of extra capacity. Capacity takes time to build and capital, which are not in large supply (an announcement of American tourism will spur some, but quality brands will stay away because they want long-term prospects). For the past five years Cuba has been offering to practically anybody to come build hotels and it hasn't happened. The laws are simply not friendly to developers.
So you say demand will drive prices up. Yes, until people realize the product is bad. I used to have clients in the travel business, both hotels and cruises. News travel fast. There's this whole mystique about Cuba the forbidden apple and all, but I just don't see the lines forming to vacation in a country in ruins.
Hi Walter,
Interesting quote. I certainly respect Mr. Palacios and like all of us, he has every right to his view. (FD, don't know him personally)
He makes an impassioned statement but his characterization is inaccurate. We are not at war, no one is being killed, and the US is not "fencing" in the Cuban people.
After the missile-crisis, the US agreed not to invade Cuba, and aside from a few assassination attempts on Fidel early on, has mostly left the island alone, rarely changing policy. What is this "war" Mr. Palacios refers to? As for the fence, it is self-imposed since the regime does not allow free travel of Cubans.
Not sure if you read my post on Obama's speech, but this is exactly the sort of misplaced rhetoric, allusions, and characterizations we need to confront head on. The language here is, simply put, completely wrong. Its amazing to me how much doubt the regime is able to sow in peoples' minds, and how successful they are at pinning blame on the US.
Why is the focal point of the discussion "how the US is hurting Cuba", rather than on how Cuba is hurting Cubans?
PS. Haven't yet read the NPR article, but promise to get back to you when I do (need to do a little work). Maybe I'll post as a main article.
Hi Alex,
Yes, maybe you're right and American's will tire of Cuba's sub-standard infrastructure.
However, not quite sure why Europeans currently brave the bad standards but you assume Americans will not? Specially given the closer distances and lower-cost airfare.
The US and Europe have roughly equal populations (if you ignore the new eastern-European entrants)...so if Americans can travel, why would you assume that the number of people wanting to go to Cuba wouldn't double? I know Europeans are eclectic and all, but do they really have drastically different travel standards and preferences?
Anyway, if you have double the number of people chasing the same number of rooms, prices go up. Even a silly communist will put 2 and 2 together and raise prices.
Axel asked:
Why is the focal point of the discussion "how the US is hurting Cuba", rather than on how Cuba is hurting Cubans?
-----------------------
A RESPONSE:
Those of us posting to this discussion are, presumably, citizens of the United States. We're responsible for what the U.S. government does, and we have some say in its decisions.
It's quite accurate to say there's a war going on between the United States and Cuba. Why? Consider:
Cuba is the ONLY country on the entire planet where a foreign country with a publicly-stated foreign policy goal is the overthrow of the local government. occupies part of the country's territory with a MILITARY base.
There is no other country ON EARTH where this situation exists.
Not only is part of Cuban national territory occupied by a hostile foreign military base, Washington tries actively to prevent Cuba from engaging in business that it even blocks websites with the word Cuba in the domain name.
Don't take MY word for it, read the report in the New York Times a few weeks ago where it was detailed:
http://tinyurl.com/yvyrcf
As to whether or not Cuba could handle the increased volume of traffic that normal relations would generate, there's no way to know now. We can of course speculate, but how can anyone know for sure?
Do you really think people will go again if they get on a plane, travel to a foreign country, and can't find a hotel room? To ask such a silly question is to answer it. Of course the travel agent will book them in a hotel as part of the package. Canadians do that. US travel agents could do the same thing.
Hi Walter,
I see you have an expansive view of what “war” is, using Webster’s second definition (i.e., a level of antagonism between two parties). Hopefully you’re not at war with your neighbors over their use of a loud lawnmower. Anyhow, back to Cuba, few people would characterize the current US/Cuba relationship as a war, but you’re certainly entitled to your view.
That said, your statement is both inaccurate and misleading. The US does not call for the overthrow of the Cuban government. It calls for real democracy, under which the current government can certainly run for election if it wishes. This not regime change ala Iraq. This is a standard US policy applicable to numerous countries across the world.
As for Guantanamo, you well know that the US signed a lease with the Cuban government after the Cuban revolutionary war (i.e., similar to the Panama canal and the UK/Hong Kong relationship). The legal standing of this lease can certainly be debated, but the general consensus is that it stands.
Hence, your characterization that the US maintains a military base in foreign soil with the explicit intent to overthrow the Cuban government is not correct.
The US does not block Cuban business – it says that if you do business with Cuba, you can’t do business with the US. This is perfectly within the right of a sovereign nation.
We are US citizens, with presumably, an interest in seeing Cuba enjoy the same freedoms we do. With this premise, it makes little sense to discuss how the US, in theory, is hurting Cuba while ignoring the 800-lb gorilla of how Cuba is hurting Cuba.
Happy to engage on the economic discussion, but didn’t get your point. Seemed you came full circle in your argument
In response to Mr. Lippmann's following remarks:
"Those of us posting to this discussion are, presumably, citizens of the United States. We're responsible for what the U.S. government does, and we have some say in its decisions."
This is in no way a legitimate argument. To be a citizen of the United States does not automatically limit one to discussion of U.S. policy, as the thousands of international human rights advocates across this country can attest to. As citizens of the U.S., should we have no interest in what occurs in Tibet, Burma, or Darfur? Or does that only concern us if the U.S. can some how serve as scapegoat for the oppression that occurs in these countries?
Your statement is also misleading and manipulative. Axel did not suggest that U.S. policy decisions should be ignored, but that we should keep in mind that it is the Cuban regime which oppresses its people. Should a government not be held responsible for the state of its nation? Surely, as citizens of the U.S., where we are capable of freely electing new leadership, where we can voice criticisms without fear, we are aware that it should.
It is with this knowledge firmly in mind that we should - and in this you are quite right - pay close attention to U.S. policies. Our foreign policies must hold other governments accountable for their populaces. As, to mimic your mantra, we do with every nation EXCEPT Cuba.
Hi, Axel -
Clauswitz, the military philosopher said that war is the continuation of politics by other means. Politics, of course, is the continuation of war by other means.
Cuba has the right to determine for itself what kind of social and political arrangements it wants.
You would not insist that Saudi Arabia must have a multi-party system before we could purchase oil from there or go there for a visit, would you? Does Dubai have a multi-party parliamentary democracy? Does Yemen? Does the United Arab Emirates? Is Washington trying to overthrow the governments of those countries? Not the last time that I looked.
Why should Cuba be subjected to special conditions which we don't apply to any other country?
Why must Cuba be held to a higher standard than any other country on earth?
Hi Walter,
Funny you should mention Clauswitz as I’m half-way through “On War” – found both introductions fascinating but must admit I’m finding Clauswitz himself less engaging. Agree that in his view, war/politics are one in the same, which is plausibly applicable to the state of affairs in 18/19th century Europe. In today’s “one-world” environment, the extension of his philosophy means that every major country is simultaneously at war with every other major country. While interesting in the theoretical, this particular part of his theory is not practical. Anyway, if you go with this theory and we are indeed at war with everyone – then the “war” with Cuba is no longer distinctive, and hence not relevant.
Your second paragraph is key – I agree!! The problem is that Cuba never decided! Initially, in the guerrilla days, Fidel hinged his moral authority on this push to remove a corrupt Batista regime. As he strode into la Habana, he hinged his power on bringing democracy to the people. Fast forward a bit, when he’s killed off his rivals and secured power, and he does a Napoleon-like about face and proclaims, I am here. There are no need for elections. The rest is history.
Walter, we both know there is no comparison between Cuba and the Kingdom, Dubai, Yemen, UAE, or China for that matter. They have different histories, cultures, traditions, and arrived at today via vastly different paths. Anyway, citizens in these countries currently enjoy vastly more freedoms than Cubans do.
Cuba is not the only country the United States has passed severe economic sanctions/trade restrictions on that are currently in effect (that list includes Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Burma, as well as Syria, Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to varying degrees), so it is simply wrong to say that Cuba is "held to a higher standard than any other country on earth."
Canadians are the highest number of visitors to Cuba, then Europeans. But yes, American tourists have the highest standards. Ask any tourism professional.
Cuba does not have the same "tropical paradise" image in the US as it does in Canada or Europe. It just doesn't. Cancun and the Caribbean are relatively just as close and inexpensive enough for higher-earning Americans. In fact, after the 2006 hurrican season when many Caribbean destinations lowered prices to attract tourism again, Cuba suffered.
ACCORDING TO PAUL:
Cuba is not the only country the United States has passed severe economic sanctions/trade restrictions on that are currently in effect (that list includes Iran, North Korea, Sudan, and Burma, as well as Syria, Zimbabwe, Cote d'Ivoire, and the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to varying degrees), so it is simply wrong to say that Cuba is "held to a higher standard than any other country on earth."
THIS IS FALSE.
Cuba is the ONLY country for which citizens and residents of the United States must have a permission slip from the federal government to go for a visit.
Cuba is the ONLY country whose citizens are granted AUTOMATIC PERMISSION to remain in the United States, no matter how they get inside US borders.
Cuba is the ONLY country for whom the United States government has spelled out in complete detail the political and social forms which its society must have in order for Cuba to merit normal relations with the United States.
So, YES, it IS true, that Cuba is held to a higher standard than any other country on earth.
Walter,
While you may dissagree with my assesment of your statement that Cuba is held to a higher standard as being wrong, it is not "FALSE" that the US has placed economic sanctions on other countries. Sanctions are standard diplomatic practice, as was restricting Americans' travel to countries it opposed (it had similar restrictions on travel to the USSR, China, North Korea, etc., although thay have since been reversed as US policy towards those countries changed).
I'm not usually one to support restrictions on what Americans can do, but these restrictions I believe are meant to stem tourism and business travel from further proping up a regime that is one of the world's worst abusers of human rights and which increasingly depends on these things for its survival. Putting obstacles in front of citizens whose actions, even though unintentional, would support a government or organization that oppresses its people seems reasonable, as for example, the US does by disallowing material support of terrorist organizations and the like. Likewise, if North Korea or Burma were to begin using tourism to prop up their regimes, I'd hope the US would introduce travel restrictions there as well.
Dear Paul -
It's true that I disagree with your statement that Cuba is held to a higher standard, but your statement is factually FALSE. There is NO other country on earth for which citizens and residents of the United States are required to have a permission slip from Washington to go for a visit. Saudi Arabia, North Korea, China, Vietnam, none of them.
Cuba DOES restrict democratic rights. I wouldn't claim anything else. Of course it does. But it's also the only country ON EARTH, where a military base continues to occupy national territory, and belonging to a country committed to the overthrow of the local government. That's what US law specifies.
Walter,
How can you write it's "factually FALSE" when I never made such a statement? Did I say that there is another country where the US currently restricts travel to like it does with Cuba? No. So to imply I did is either a simple, but complete, misreading of my comment(s) or just an attempt to set up a straw man argument for you to easily knock down. I just said the US once did (USSR, China, North Korea, etc.) and that such travel restrictions are a diplomatic tool used by other countries (cuba, for one, comes to mind).
That being said, I find it educational to read comments from both sides of these issues, even if I am not always persuaded by the arguments, and I appreciate the civil tone most people have taken, which is rare to find when talking about subjects that we're all so passionate about.
A civil tone makes it possible for some light and clarity to come from a discussion. Those are worthwhile goals to strive for.
Cuba is held to a higher standard than any other country on earth. That's a factually accurate statement.
Best,
Walter Lippmann
Your post beckons for some old-fashioned Cuban compota or on this side of the ocean, a little government cheese and spam which I must confess I once was partial to, but I digress.
If by "held to a higher standard," you mean that they have been historically given a pass for human rights abuses, the jailing of political prisoners by the tens of thousands, the spread of "third world messianism", internment of homosexuals and others labeled undersirables, etc., then and only then would I say that your statement is backed by empirical evidence.
Cuba is being held to a higher standard than any other country on earth. That was my point.
They haven't really bothered homosexuals in Cuba for years. They had a big national celebration for World Anti Homophobia Day this year on May 17, for one example.
Walter Mercado,
Apparently, "factually accurate" does not mean "empirically based" for you.
I find your apologetic and revisionist response about the treatment of gays and lesbians under the regime objectionable.
It would behoove you to check your "facts" again. What is likely a forced and rehearsed national celebration does not wipe away the stain that those like Reinaldo Arenas and others like him endured under the Castro regime.
Now, what will you prefer compota or government cheese and spam? Having had both at one time or another, I'm frankly torn...
obviously Axel, you have no family in Cuba. If you would, you would look at the remittance arguement as a humanitarian one and not so much a strategic one. It is also hard to think of organizing dissent when your belly is empty.
Hi qbawillbfree,
Can't disagree with your conclusion - I definitely look at Cuba issues through a strategic lens, mainly because I beleive that is what is needed to effect change.
On remittances themselves, I just don't see the rational in trading the long-term for the short-term, as tempting and necessary as it may be to help our families.
But...please do not misunderstand my point. I do not argue for setting policy and then forgetting about it, but rather, using policy as an ACTIVE tool of diplomacy to spur change in the island (explained in more detail in other posts).
I agree with your point on empty bellies, but would suggest that you're missing 50% - neither empty nor full bellies (Cuba has had both) have led to change in Cuba in 50 yrs. Hence, while future change must come from within, I do not beleive it is possible without active support from without.
I actually do have family in Cuba, and we have supported them continuously for 25 yrs. As you suggest, it is impossible for us not to help our families when we have the means and legality to do so. We do it because they need it and we can.
However, this does not make it the right choice for Cuba's long-term welfare, and I would stop if the policy/law were changed, as I indeed beleive would be best.
Post a Comment