CUBA: Time Devours Hope

By IPS Correspondents Reprint | | Print |

Commentary by Eric Nepomuceno*

RIO DE JANEIRO, Apr 21 2003 (IPS) - It should come as no surprise that Latin American intellectuals, whose lives and work often go hand- in-hand with the profound desire for social change in the region, are shifting away from or openly challenging the Cuban Revolution as a result of some of the measures adopted in its name.

Nor are the debate and the criticism of the Revolution unprecedented or unusual, though this does not detract from support for the Cuban people and for the political and social process initiated in 1959.

Something, however, has emerged with a touch of novelty in the current waves of criticisms of and clear signs of rupture with the Cuban government.

Beyond the force, weight and volume of the voices that are raised in protest of the recent arrests and trials of a group of Cuban citizens, and which peaked with the executions of three people who had taken part in the failed hijacking of a passenger ferry, there hovers the phantom of time.

It is a phantom that drifts in two directions: the time lived within the 43 years of the Cuban Revolution; and the time lived by the rest of the world. This is, I believe, at the core of the changes.

The harshest declarations did not come from intellectuals who have long distanced themselves from the Cuban Revolution.

On the contrary, what we are hearing are the pained voices of veteran supporters of the process led by Fidel Castro – most notably Portuguese author and Nobel laureate José Saramago and Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano – expressing their irremediable discrepancy with the paths that the Cuban government has chosen at a time of great tension worldwide.

Three decades ago, personalities of unquestionable leftist political adhesion, such as Nicaraguan poet Claribel Alegría and Argentine writers Julio Cortázar and Rodolfo Walsh, lifted their voices in strident criticism of specific episodes of the Revolution (the famous ”Padilla case” in particular).

But most of these intellectuals ended up returning to the Cuban side of the question.

There were significant changes made by those responsible for the route the Caribbean island would follow, and even during periods of distancing, the dialogue between these intellectuals and their Cuban counterparts was not interrupted.

Over the past decades, many of the foreign intellectuals expressing solidarity with the Cuban process had the opportunity to make hard-hitting observations and open criticisms of certain things that took place on the island. And they did so directly to the maximum powers, including to Fidel Castro, an exercise enjoyed all too seldom by their counterparts living in Cuba.

And despite this there have been no dramatic breaks in relations. I myself, on more than one occasion, witnessed biting criticisms made directly to Fidel by people of unquestionable solidarity with Cuba, such as Brazilian writer Antonio Callado, Ecuadorian poet Jorge Enrique Adoum, and, once again, Eduardo Galeano – and none of them renounced support for the Revolution.

Brazilian anthropologist Darcy Ribeiro never stopped complaining that his major works went ignored by Cuba, but he never quit his full support in solidarity with the island.

So, if these divergences are nothing new, why such a strong impact now?

What is the difference from previous events, such as the 1970 trial of Cuban poet Heberto Padilla and his pathetic retraction, or the persecution and censure of painters and poets during the prolonged and gloomy period known as ”the five grey years”, which in fact nearly turned into a black decade, and which prompted so much criticism from personalities who continued their solidarity with the Revolution?

Time. For years it was expected – on and off the island – that a consolidated, mature Revolution, which had sent indisputable signs of its ability to defend itself without losing a bit of its generosity and integrity, would find its own mechanisms for renovation and would set out to absorb new winds.

Time. The world changed, and continues changing. And although the situation of aggression against Cuba remains practically the same, the departure between the dynamic of history and the status quo of the Revolution (what a paradox!) means that the expectations of those who accompany this process on the side of the Cuban people are translated into frustration.

It would be difficult for another historic event to achieve such a great concentration of support, so much hope amongst the peoples of Latin America, as the Cuban Revolution did. Although there are criticisms against the model, no one can ignore the example set.

But the damage is clear. The world is another thing, the expectations and possibilities are something else, and something else still is what the history of the Revolution – renewed and with greater vigour – should be.

Latin American intellectuals solidary with the people of Cuba will continue in their stance. But I think it is evident that the leaders of the country’s political process lost important allies, on and off the island, due to their refusal to open up the house to rejuvenating winds.

Inside and outside: in the end it is not just those who accompany Cuba from afar that have eyes and minds to see the errors. On the contrary, inside and outside of the country, time devours hope with its corrosive teeth.

(* Eric Nepomuceno is a Brazilian author whose works include ”A palavra nunca”, ”Coisas do mundo”, ”Quarta-feira” (stories) and the essays ”Cuba: apuntes sobre una revolución” and ”Nicaragua, un país acosado”. He is also the Brazilian translator of works by Colombian author and Nobel laureate Gabriel García Márquez.)