Fidel Castro: End of an Era for Cuba?

Fidel Castro, patriarch of the Cuban revolution, is on the ropes, likely to go the way of all flesh in the foreseeable future. He leaves quite a legacy.

On the plus side, illiteracy and destitution have long been eradicated. There’s a lot to be said for this feat, especially in a developing country. On the negative side, as with such regimes, if what you think does not dovetail with official ideological strictures, and you’re bold enough to say it out loud, things can get quite messy for you. All the same, Fidel, while certainly a dictator, is not a despot in the mould of Kim Jong Il, or the unmourned Saddam Hussein.

I had the opportunity to visit Cuba at another historical crossroads the island nation faced, in the fall of 1990. The Iron Curtain had fallen, leaving the Cuban regime intact, though without a sponsor. There was definitely the sense that the other shoe was about to drop.

Two years previously, I had visited the former German Democratic Republic. As a free-thinking youth, growing up in Jewish and conservative Thornhill towards the end of the Cold War, since everyone was down on Communism, it seemed only logical to see it first hand in order to decide for myself. While my reaction had much to do with my age and background, I was very much impressed with the welfare state, educational system and medical scheme. On this last point, even all medications were free. Of course the quality of consumer products was decidedly shoddy, and the inability to travel freely was a definite downer.

So I had a basis of comparison between Capitalism and Communism in the developed world. The following year, I spent my first sojourn in Brazil. Now I wanted to compare first hand these two systems in the developing world. This was my main motivation for visiting Cuba.

I met some other tourists of interest. An sprightly Irish woman, who had previously lived in Canada. A Hungarian fellow my age and a middle-aged German man, with both of whom I rented a car to go out and see a crocodile farm one particular day. I had to translate the whole episode from Spanish into German; but it was fun nonetheless. And of course there were the Cubans I came across.

Certainly there was widespread admiration for Fidel and the role he had played in the revolution and subsequent building of a new society. But they were poor. I was actually taken aback at how little they were monetized, at least in peso terms. At that time, the minimum salary was 100 pesos a month (a mere pittance) and the maximum (this was a novel concept for me) was 400-500. Nevertheless, like in other socialist economies, rent was heavily subsidized (bringing about an acute housing shortage), as were basic foodstuffs and transport (when you could find it). Cuba is said to have the best medical system in the developing world. Perhaps that has been eroded since that time, but at least children don’t die from malnutrition or preventable diseases like in other countries of a similar income level. In fact, Cuba has a rather disproportionate number of centenarians, prompting academic study on the subject.

In sum, the poor in Brazil are screwed when compared to the poor in Cuba, notwithstanding the fact that the former is by far a wealthier nation. In such developing countries, the poor can constitute up to 80% of the population, depending on how you slice and dice the numbers. This begs the utilitarian question of whether it is more important to feed, employ and educate society’s weaker strata, or to allow them to read dissident novelists.

It’s a pity that precious few countries have succeeded in combining the wealth-creating engine of Capitalism with a welfare state worthy of the name. Those who have are rich countries to begin with. Perhaps the real question should be how enough wealth can be created and budgeted for a generous welfare state, without severely diminishing the incentive to work and souring the overall business climate. I don’t profess to have the answers, but do verily believe that it is an ideal to strive for, especially in this age where globalization is diminishing the income distribution gap between countries, but increasing it within them.

Regarding Cuban foreign policy vis-à-vis Israel, Fidel could never really be considered an ally, even though all sorts of quiet deals have been made and executed over the years. In international forums, Cuban rhetoric has not been favorable to Israel. This has probably been exacerbated by the newish alliance with Venezuela. I’m not quite sure what to make of Hugo Chavez. I must admit a certain grudging admiration for someone who has stood up to U.S. foreign policy idiocies. And while not so soundly financed, I certainly have a high regard for the social programs he has instituted for Venezuela’s vast poor. More disturbingly, he has adopted a policy of forging alliances with basically anyone who hates America, which includes Israel’s ultimate nemesis these days, Iran. However, on the balance, Hugo Chavez is not reckless. The oil continues to flow and economic relations with the U.S., although strained by virtue of recent announcements of nationalizations, continue unbroken. On the whole, apart from the shrill rhetoric, Chavez is basically harmless and should simply be ignored, much like the class clown.

If the United States expects regime change before an end to their stupid, arrogant and simply wrong-headed policy toward Cuba, the Cuban people will go on languishing in their economic development, and American business will continue to miss the significant opportunities on offer on the island. Just what is so terrible about letting sovereign Cuba find its own way? There present absolutely no security threat whatsoever to the U.S. or its interests anywhere. There are full relations today with Vietnam, a country with whom the U.S. fought a terrible war. There should be with Cuba, too.

Fidel has left an overall positive legacy, worthy of much admiration and study. Yes, he is a doctrinaire micromanager. And he probably should have bowed out on his own several years back. Now the Cuban regime and people are set to plot the course of their future. It is safe to expect that there will be a new pragmatism. If the U.S. needs so badly to save face after nearly fifty years bullying, they can be allowed to wait for Fidel to meet his Maker. But immediately thereafter, Cuba must be brought in forthwith from the diplomatic and economic cold, whatever the new government decides. It is simply the right and logical thing to do.