activists in Latin America. RICARDO ALARCON: Even Without Embargo, US Would Try to Rule Cuba

By Patricia Grogg and Dalia Acosta Reprint | | Print |

Dalia Acosta and Patricia Grogg

HAVANA, Oct 15 1999 (IPS) - The enmity between socialist Cuba and the United States, a definite risk to the security of this side of the western hemisphere, will extend into the next century with no prospects for a solution in the near future, according to Ricardo Alarcon, president of the National Assembly of People’s Power, Cuba’s parliament.

Alarcon, 62, a former foreign minister and the official who has headed the touchy negotiations that gave rise to the migration accords between the two countries, the only point on which Washington and Havana have reached agreement in the past 40 years, believes the intention to dominate Cuba underlies U.S. policy against the government of Fidel Castro.

He maintains that that aim preceded, by many years, the emergence of a socialist regime in this Caribbean nation, and that hence an end to the blockade in place since 1961 would not necessarily put an end to Washington’s hostility toward Cuba.

Alarcon is one of the leaders in Cuba closest to Castro, whose revolutionary movement – known as ’26 de Julio’ – he joined in 1955. He is opposed to any change that could make his country similar to a representative democracy, although he admits that the island nation’s political system could be perfected.

In Alarcon’s view, the Cuban revolution continues to represent an alternative to the “homogenising and demobilising” model found in most of the world, despite the impact of the economic crisis on the populace. And he adds a warning: those who attempt to change the capitalist system while accepting its rules will always end up losing.

IPS: What are the greatest threats to Cuban security?

RICARDO ALARCON: Having the United States just 90 miles away. From the time of the 13 [founding U.S.] colonies up to now, Cuba’s big security problem has been, is, and I fear will remain for a long time, the U.S. aim of dominating it.

And today we are no longer talking about those 13 colonies that began to expand westward and southward in the early 19th century, but of the superpower, the “global sheriff”, the overwhelming technological might of the United States, in what is moreover a lop-sided world, without restraints, without a United Nations charter, without international standards.

Underlying the U.S. anti-Cuba policy is the aim to dominate Cuba, by imposing on the world a specific schema, not only in words but through concrete actions. But that bid has failed. We have big problems, the blockade hurts us, but it must be admitted that not everyone obeys it, that the U.S. has been unable to fully impose it.

The most novel development is a questioning of the blockade within the United States. A significant portion of the agricultural sector, for example, openly criticises the embargo, something that was not occurring as recently as five years ago. And some U.S. citizens even travel to Cuba, in violation of government regulations.

IPS: Nevertheless, some analysts maintain that Cuba’s security is based on the viability of the economy, the fulfillment and defence of its project of social justice. After nine years of crisis, only slight improvements have been seen, and the international market offers the island very little. Internally, inequalities have been accentuated, and people feel they are barely scraping by, with a social system that continued throughout the 1980s to offer them an outlook of future prosperity.

But the Cuban government continues to consider viable an economic and social programme that requires many sacrifices from the people, and in an adverse global context. Doesn’t that insistence put the revolution in danger, from within?

ALARCON: And what is the alternative? There is none. It is not a question of whether or not this project that is attempting to salvage what was achieved in 40 years of revolution is viable. We maintain a system of free health services for all, and although some medications, or hospital materials, are lacking, what is the alternative? Privatising medicine? Would that improve the people’s situation? Perhaps for a few, but not for everyone.

The capitalist alternative would not give the majority of people a better life, would not resolve their material problems. The inequalities introduced by the changes in the economy have taught Cubans that. Some would have greater buying power and could have a decent standard of health and education, but the majority would not. And that is how things are wherever that alternative has been applied.

IPS: But in the long-term, doesn’t this prolonged economic crisis end up jeopardising political stability?

ALARCON: The situation remains difficult, the problems are very big, but the crisis has been effectively staunched, and the economy has rallied slightly, while social gains have been preserved – although these, like living standards, have been hurt by the material situation.

Despite the blockade and all of the pressures from outside, we have gradually forged spaces for ourselves in the world and have an array of relations that allow the country to survive and more or less develop. The big problem is when we compare the current situation with that of the 1980s. We have not yet recovered what we had then, and the material problems continue exercising pressure.

But the question ‘what is the alternative?’ crops up again, and it is a debate that lies in the sphere of ideas. They tell us “accept capitalism,” return to liberal democracy, and all of your problems will end. But that is not true anywhere in the world, not even in Washington.

IPS: Why have Cuba and the United States been able to reach agreements on the question of migration, with favourable results for both sides, and not on other issues that are also clearly of mutual interest?

ALARCON: The accords on migration, the terms of which have generally been met, are limited agreements, which are affected by abnormal bilateral relations. Upon arrival to the United States, Cubans continue receiving preferential treatment reserved only for them.

The fact that the policy is so abnormal, and the existence of very strong anti-immigration currents in that country, have made it possible for a majority in the U.S. administration and Congress to back the accords with Cuba. (continued)