CUBA-US: The Never-Ending Conflict, 40 Years On

By Patricia Grogg Reprint | | Print |

Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Jan 4 1999 (IPS) - Nearly four decades after the rupture of diplomatic ties between Cuba and the United States and 40 years after the triumph of the revolution led by Fidel Castro, analysts say neither government seems in a hurry to ease the tension that still runs high, even though the scenario and many of the actors have changed.

In an unexpectedly brief 1.5 hour speech marking the 40th anniversary of the revolution Friday, Castro stressed that the Cuban revolution had been submitted “to the toughest test to which any revolutionary process in the world has been submitted.”

On a balcony of the city hall of Santiago de Cuba, 800 kms east of Havana – where he delivered his first speech on Jan. 1, 1959 after dictator Fulgencio Batista fled the country – he said that “with the participation of three generations, (the revolution) has withstood 40 years of aggression, blockade and economic, political and ideological war from the most powerful and richest imperialist power that has ever existed in history.”

He also praised the resistance and determination of Cuba’s 11 million inhabitants in continuing forward in the past eight years of economic crisis, when the island found itself “completely on its own” after the collapse of the east European socialist bloc.

Castro, 72, has survived nine U.S. governments, all of which were determined, in one form or another, to bring the Caribbean island nation back into the fold of multi-party democracy and free enterprise.

But that aim has not been fulfilled, and a growing sector of U.S. society and even the U.S.- based Cuban exile community have begun to seriously question the viability of Washington’s Cuba policy.

We need a national dialogue on Cuba, said Archbishop of Boston Bernardo Law, who added that he believed the general position in the United States was favourable to considering a shift in policy toward the island.

We can’t live thinking constantly about the past, said Law on his last visit to Havana, when he expressed his support for the creation of a bipartisan Democratic-Republican congressional commission to review the U.S. approach to Cuba.

The idea has been circulating in Washington since October, when it was proposed to President Bill Clinton by around 20 senators headed by Republican lawmaker John Warner.

The proposal recommends an in-depth study of the danger that Cuba poses for the United States, indemnification for U.S. citizens whose assets were confiscated after the triumph of the Cuban revolution, and the national and international impact of the U.S. economic embargo against Cuba.

Although it has the support of prominent figures like former secretary of state Henry Kissinger, the idea has failed to obtain the backing of Cuban-American legislators, who are opposed to any action that would signify an easing of the pressure on the Castro government.

But on a visit to Havana last month with other U.S. lawmakers, Senator Christopher Dodd said that “some of us” are unclear just what exactly is our government’s position on Cuba. In his opinion, a review of the current policy, which dates back to the 1960s, could perhaps provide a chance to “put the matter on the right track.”

The Cuban government has been reserved in its declarations, but Foreign Ministry spokesman Alejandro Gonzalez reiterated that a lifting of the blockade would be a good starting-point.

According to estimates by the Cuban government, the U.S. embargo in place since the 1960s and stiffened by the Helms-Burton law enacted in 1996 has driven spending on food imports up by some 69 million dollars a year.

By 1995, the blockade had led to 60 billion dollars in losses for Cuba – equivalent to three times the country’s gross national product.

Nipping in the bud an incipient thaw in relations which included talks and accords on migration, the blockade was toughened in 1996 when Clinton signed the Helms-Burton act into law just after the Cuban Air Force shot down two small civil aircraft flown by members of Brothers to the Rescue, a Miami-based anti-Castro group.

As a sign of the failure of the embargo, Cuban authorities point to the fact that 181 new joint ventures have been formalised since the passage of Helms-Burton, bringing the total number of Cuban companies partly operating with foreign capital to 351.

Castro continues to hold a firm grasp on power, political stability has been maintained in spite of a severe economic crisis, Helms-Burton has failed to curb the entry of foreign capital – and the voices of those wondering why a failed policy is maintained are growing louder.

In the view of Carlos Fernandez de Cossio, director of U.S. and Canadian affairs in the Cuban Foreign Ministry, there are several reasons. “In the first place, there is a Cold War inertia, plus the ever-present aspiration to control Cuba’s destiny.”

He added that in the United States, Cuba is an issue of little significance and interest, which makes it easy for certain groups, “like the Cuban-American mafia,” to monopolise and manage the matter according to their interests.

In many ways, Cuba is treated as a national affair rather than as part of a foreign policy strategy, he commented, adding that there were still powerful sectors in the United States that considered it unacceptable for a socialist country to exist so close to U.S. shores.

Even among the fragmented, outlawed internal opposition in Cuba there are many who reject what is seen as an “erroneous” U.S. policy toward the island. “The great majority of dissidents are opposed to Washington’s policy today, and only a minority still support it,” commented Elizardo Sanchez, president of the illegal Cuban Commission for Human Rights and Reconciliation.

In Sanchez’s opinion, the embargo has only “fed the most intolerant currents” within the country, and served as justification to conceal “the government’s inefficiency.”

Local academics also point to major social and political shifts among the Cuban-American community, which has some 600,000 members in the southeastern state of Florida alone.

They point out that many young people born after Castro seized power do not agree with the evil light in which his regime is cast, and are pressuring for changes in the approach toward Havana.

In response to the call issued by Pope John Paul II during his January visit to Cuba, the Clinton administration reinstated direct flights between the two countries in March, and made it possible once again for Cubans in the United States to send their families up to 1,200 dollars a year.

Analysts say it would not be surprising if a year after the Pontiff’s historic visit, during which he reiterated his opposition to the embargo and urged the world to “open up to Cuba,” Washington announced new measures to relax the embargo.

Observers also point to the irreversible division of the Cuban exile community and the diminished clout of the “radical anti- Castroists.”

Furthermore, they point to the possibility of negotiations on issues other than migration, in the context of the suggested bipartisan commission which, if set up, could lead to a radical shift away from an “antediluvian policy,” in the words of a local expert on hemispheric security, who preferred to remain anonymous.