A Small Man Becomes Smaller

Having recently indulged in foreign policy as spite, when his administration implicitly denied a Jewish connection with the old city of Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, by changing long-standing American policy and refusing to veto an anti-Israel resolution at the United Nations, all because he can't stand Prime Minister Netanyahu (hey, I don't like him either), even though the vote means the end of any chance, however slight, for a negotiated settlement of the Israeli-Palestinian dispute, President Obama has now indulged himself in another bit of revenge politics on his way out the door.

Obama's latest antic is to reverse long-standing American policy allowing any Cuban refugee who risks their life crossing the dangerous Florida Straits (the majority perish during the trip) to be granted American residency if they land on our coast.  Under the new policy, the refugees will be returned to Cuba.  This is part of Obama's nice guy policy to the Communist government of Cuba, which systematically looted and destroyed that island over the past six decades.  It's also payback, as Cubans, once they become U.S. citizens, tend to vote Republican as opposed to the Democratic leanings of most Latinos.  (For a reminder of what Obama's Cuban policy really means read these THC posts).

It will be a relief to see this petty and petulant man exit the Oval Office.

The Good News

The world is a little bit better place today.  Fidel Castro is dead.

(Prisoner executed by Castro)

After almost 58 years of rule by Fidel, his brother, and their accomplices, a once-thriving country has been demolished.  As PBS summed it up:

On the eve of Fidel Castro’s 1959 revolution, Cuba was neither the paradise that would later be conjured by the nostalgic imaginations of Cuba’s many exiles, nor the hellhole painted by many supporters of the revolution, who recall Cuba as “the brothel of the Western hemisphere” — an island inhabited by a people degraded and hungry, whose main occupation was to cater to American tourists at Havana’s luxurious hotels, beaches and casinos. Rather, Cuba was one of the most advanced and successful countries in Latin America.

Cuba’s capital, Havana, was a glittering and dynamic city. In the early part of the century the country’s economy, fueled by the sale of sugar to the United States, had grown dynamically. Cuba ranked fifth in the hemisphere in per capita income, third in life expectancy, second in per capita ownership of automobiles and telephones, first in the number of television sets per inhabitant. The literacy rate, 76%, was the fourth highest in Latin America. Cuba ranked 11th in the world in the number of doctors per capita. Many private clinics and hospitals provided services for the poor. Cuba’s income distribution compared favorably with that of other Latin American societies. A thriving middle class held the promise of prosperity and social mobility. 

Or, as Michael Totten put it more succinctly: 

Cuba isn't a developing country; it's a once-developed country destroyed by its own government.

The extent of the adulation afforded Fidel (and we will, no doubt, see some nauseating examples in reaction to his death*), and to his gay and black-hating, Stalinist thug lieutenant, Che Guevara, is disgusting for anyone who values human rights and liberty. We can only hope that his death hastens the day when the entire regime will be swept away, though unfortunately the Obama administration's recent opening has only triggered another wave of repression against Castro opponents.

Rather than spend any more time on Castro, let's remember the millions exiled from Cuba, the tens of thousands who perished in the Florida Straits over the decades, attempting to escape a regime that regarded them as human chattel, and the uncounted thousands executed and imprisoned by the dictator.  Here is one of those dissidents who survived two decades in Castro's prisons - Armando Valladares:

The next morning, they welded the doors shut. Lieutenant Cruz, head of the Political Police, told us Castro had personally ordered it done. We were told we’d stay in those cells not for months, but for years. 

You can find more THC posts on Cuba here.

*UPDATE:

Justin Trudeau, Prime Minister of Canada, takes the early lead in the most morally repulsive statement.  You can read the whole thing here, but look at this excerpt:

“Fidel Castro was a larger than life leader who served his people for almost half a century. A legendary revolutionary and orator, Mr. Castro made significant improvements to the education and healthcare of his island nation.

“While a controversial figure, both Mr. Castro’s supporters and detractors recognized his tremendous dedication and love for the Cuban people who had a deep and lasting affection for “el Comandante”.

Meanwhile, kudos to Democratic House Minority Leader, Nancy Pelosi:

“The death of Fidel Castro marks the end of an era for Cuba and the Cuban people.  After decades under Fidel’s doctrine of oppression and antagonism, there is hope that a new path for Cuba is opening. . . Generations of Cuban political prisoners, democracy activists and families suffered under Fidel Castro’s rule.”

No Cuba Libre

Last Sunday's Washington Post carried an editorial titled "Failure In Cuba", taking the Obama administration to task for it failure to achieve what it declared were the goals of its policy restoring diplomatic relations between the two countries - "to unleash the potential of 11 million Cubans" and "to engage and empower the Cuban people".

The Post is downright scathing about what has happened since normalization began in December 2014, after the mid-term elections, when the President felt it was safe to undertake his initiative:

Yet there is scant evidence so far of a sea change in Cuba — perhaps because Mr. Obama continues to offer the Castro regime unilateral concessions requiring nothing in return. Since the United States has placed no human rights conditions on the opening, the Castro regime continues to systematically engage in arbitrary detention of dissidents and others who speak up for democracy. In fact, detentions have spiked in recent months. The state continues to monopolize radio, television and newspapers.

The administration has defined one of its goals as opening Cuba to the Internet, but the nation still suffers from some of the lowest connectivity rates in the world. The regime established a few dozen Wifi spots but charges people $2 an hour to use them; the average salary is $20 a month. The state retains a chokehold on the economy, including tourism; the benefits of a 50 percent increase in U.S. visitors are being garnered by Raúl Castro’s son-in-law, the industry’s boss. .Meanwhile, Cuba’s purchases of U.S. goods have fallen by a double-digit percentage.

What’s most evident over the past year is that the Castro brothers are effectively preventing real change and reform even as they reap the rewards of Mr. Obama’s opening. The president’s only response has been more unilateral concessions, along with talk of a visit to the island before he leaves office. Autocrats everywhere must be watching with envy the Castros’ good fortune.

THC has written before about the reality of Cuba (see Top 5 Reasons We Ended Cuba Embargo,  Solving Income Inequality (reporting on Cuba's maximum wage of $20 a month), and New York Times Has Second Thoughts On Cuba (THC was joking)).  He was not opposed to a change in America's policy towards Cuba if it involved a mutual opening up, but that is far from what has happened.  Instead the Castro brothers, reputed to be worth hundreds of million dollars, are thriving while the Cuban people continue to suffer.

Beyond what even the Post editorial mentions is that U.S. government contact with dissidents is now less than it was before December 2014, because our contacts are now directed through the government instead of around it.  The dissidents report they are demoralized by what has happened.

President Obama's actions have been shameful.  As with so much else the President has done, THC finds his real motives unfathomable.  THC remembers every president since JFK.  Some we think highly of, others not so much, but he's always had a sense of why they acted the way they did.  Perhaps someday, we'll really get a sense of the inner man and what he really thinks of us and the world.  From what we can see on the outside it's very disturbing.

Second Thoughts From The New York Times On Cuba

(Carlos Slim Yacht)
(Cuban refugee yacht)

Attentive THC readers may remember his December 2014 post, Top 5 Reasons We Ended The Cuba Embargo.

The first four were:

- Retro look of Havana appeals to hipsters.

- Travel to U.S. mostly by boat which is more environmentally-friendly than air travel.

- Fairness Doctrine implemented on more progressive basis grounded in concept that anything not approved by Government is unfair.

- Fertile ground for new Cash for Clunkers program.

The fifth was:

- Income inequality solved by maximum monthly wage of $20.

It's this last one which is now giving the New York Times second thoughts about the wisdom of ending the embargo as you can see in its recent article bemoaning the advent of capitalism on the island:

Inequality Becomes More Visible in Cuba as the Economy Shifts

This is causing the Times, which has advocated strongly for reducing income inequality in both its editorial and news sections, anguish.  It is better for everyone to remain poor together according to the Times.  Well, almost everyone.  In Cuba, the ruling elite is exempt from many of the restrictions imposed on the rest of the population because, well, just because.  In the U.S. the Times pushes the issue though it would exempt the members of its Editorial Board, the family owners of the paper (the Sulzbergers) and its largest non-family shareowner (currently 17%) the well-connected Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim who controls 80% of the landlines and 70% of cell phone service in his native country (see this NPR piece on his monopolistic practices; no mention of his large ownership interest in the Times; does anyone doubt that if Slim were a major shareholder in Fox that NPR would have mentioned it at least in passing?).
 

All of which brings to mind Margaret Thatcher's response on income inequality from 1990: "They'd rather have the poor poorer".

Top 5 Reasons We Ended The Cuba Embargo

1.  Retro look of Havana appeals to hipsters.
 

2.  Travel to U.S. mostly by boat more environmentally-friendly than air travel.

3.  Income inequality solved by maximum monthly wage of $20.

4.  Fairness Doctrine implemented on Progressive principles grounded in concept that anything not approved by Government is unfair.

5.  Fertile ground for new Cash for Clunkers program.

Solving Income Inequality

Apparently Income Inequality (TM) has become quite an ISSUE for some folks.  THC never heard much about it until a couple of years ago (though he recently reported on the highly educated efforts of Harvard and MIT to address this pressing issue in a post of April 1, 2014), but in the interests of keeping our devoted readership informed we wanted to let you know that Michael Totten, intrepid foreign correspondent and keeper of the Dispatches blog, has, in his recent travels, stumbled upon a solution that has, until now, eluded the sheltered and provincial people of America.

At City Journal, Totten reports on his recent visit to Cuba, part of an ongoing series the rest of which can be found at Dispatches.  According to Totten, it turns out that Cuba has successfully solved income inequality by imposing a maximum monthly wage of approximately $20 a month!!  Seems like a solution that is simple, cutting through the Gordian Knot of complexity which some reactionaries throw up to avoid addressing the ISSUE.
(Havana from City Journal)
In its empathetic approach towards the issue the Cuban government has taken creative steps to ensure that inequality does not arise again particularly as the regime has selectively opened small parts of its economy to  foreign companies.  Totten reports on the experience of Melia International, the Spanish company hired to manage Havana's tourist hotels.  Before signing its contract Melia insisted it wanted to pay its Cuban workers a "decent wage" in the range of $8-10 an hour.  The government agreed, but to spare its citizens from any resulting inequity it insisted that Melia pay the wage directly to the government which in turn pays each worker 67 cents a day.  We can only applaud such dedication and the satisfaction it must provide to the people of Cuba!
(Havana from Dispatches)
Totten does claim in passing that:

Cuba isn’t a developing country; it’s a once-developed country destroyed by its own government.

But that is surely an uncharitable remark and a small price to pay for eliminating inequality!*


* Certain government officials do make substantially more than the maximum wage but we all recognize that those in the Revolutionary Vanguard need adequate resources to allow them a single-minded focus on the welfare of The People. (Havana from Dispatches)