maybe I'm biased but my feeling is Raul is pretty much saying there will be changes after Bush goes (and this would correspond with his brother "going" as well)
I anticipate a lot of Chinese style reforms. Not sure they'll work in Cuba's case though. They're not China.
Raul Castro says Cuba avoided collapse
By WILL WEISSERT, Associated Press Writer 1 hour, 5 minutes ago
CAMAGUEY, Cuba - Raul Castro said Thursday that Cuba has avoided the collapse the U.S. predicted when his brother Fidel fell ill a year ago, and signaled he was willing to talk with a new American administration after President Bush leaves power.
ADVERTISEMENT
The acting president said the island suffered "a hard blow" when Fidel relinquished power last year, but he focused more on the future while addressing tens of thousands of loyalists celebrating Cuba's Revolution Day.
"These have truly been difficult moments, although with a diametrically different impact than that expected by our enemies, who wished for chaos to take hold and for Cuban socialism to collapse," Raul Castro said. "Senior U.S. officials even made statements about taking advantage of this scenario to destroy the revolution."
Fidel, who turns 81 next month, addressed crowds in two cities last July 26, then disappeared from the public eye. He has not been seen publicly since, announcing five days later that he was ceding power to Raul after undergoing emergency intestinal surgery.
Recuperating in an undisclosed location, Fidel has looked stronger in official photographs and videos, but is apparently still too sick to appear in public. In April, he began writing essays known as "Reflections of the Commander in Chief" every few days.
Cuba "could hardly even suspect what a hard blow was awaiting us" when his brother was last seen exactly a year ago, Raul told the crowd in this city of narrow colonial streets southeast of Havana.
"Despite our deep sorrow, no task was left undone," he said. "There is order in the country and a lot of work."
Washington's 45-year-old embargo prohibits U.S. tourists from visiting the island and chokes off nearly all trade between both countries. Raul called the Bush administration "erratic and dangerous," but said he would be open to discussing improved relations after a new president takes over following next year's elections.
"If the new United States authorities would finally desist from their arrogance and decide to converse in a civilized manner, it would be a welcome change," he said.
The younger Castro's government is still officially provisional but has begun to take on an air of permanence. In his essays, Fidel seems in little hurry to return to power although Raul suggested Thursday his brother still weighs in on key decisions.
"Not even during the most serious moments of his illness, did he fail to bring his wisdom and experience to each problem and essential decision," the acting president said.
With his characteristic frankness, Raul acknowledged Cuba suffers from numerous problems that require "structural changes" he did not detail. He singled out government salaries, which average about $16 a month and fail to cover basic needs, even in a communist society where food, rent, education and health care are heavily subsidized.
But he emphasized Cuba must increase production and reduce reliance on foreign imports, saying "no country has the luxury of spending more than it has."
Raul spoke for an hour without deviating from his prepared text, stopping only occasionally to acknowledge the crowd.
Camaguey, Cuba's third-largest city and the provincial capital of a major milk- and beef-producing region, was chosen to host this year's Revolution Day celebration because of its social and economic achievements. Tens of thousands of people, many wearing red T-shirts and waving miniature Cuban flags, filled the main plaza of red-tile paths and towering palm trees.
Other top leaders wished Fidel well and said he was at the event in spirit. Some in the crowd said it was more important for Fidel to get better than to give a lengthy speech.
"Raul converses well with the people and that gives us a special lift," said Gilberto Guerrero, a retired 74-year-old sugar cane worker who arrived before dawn. "There's so much happening in the world, but Raul speaks directly to the people of Cuba."
The July 26, 1953 attack by the Castro brothers and a ragtag band on the Moncada army barracks in the eastern city of Santiago quickly degenerated into disaster. Many rebels were shot dead during the fighting or captured and slaughtered a short time later by Cuban forces.
But the revolutionary movement it gave birth to gained new strength and eventually toppled dictator Fulgencio Batista more than five years later.
Carlos Abreu, 65, a retired airport employee, was 18 when the revolution triumphed.
"There was so much happiness that day. But there was even more anticipation," he said. "They built a country for the poor, not for the rich. There are very few countries like that in the world."
Dios Mio, these stupid people just don't get it.
As long as there is one single sign that Fidel is still alive, nothing will change. Let's wait till the old goat dies then we can discuss changes.
I have heard from friends who have just arrived from visiting that people are becoming bolder, and things are starting to loosen up a bit. Now THAT'S a good sign.
Mercy Wrote:Dios Mio, these stupid people just don't get it.
As long as there is one single sign that Fidel is still alive, nothing will change. Let's wait till the old goat dies then we can discuss changes.
I have heard from friends who have just arrived from visiting that people are becoming bolder, and things are starting to loosen up a bit. Now THAT'S a good sign.
yes most Cuba analysts have said Fidel still casts a very large shadow over everything and his brother will not move decisively until he's gone.
it's clear Fifo would have found the changes hard to stomach, as he found those during the Special Period, bu he had no choice.
He started rolling some of that stuff back a couple of years ago, but methinks Raul will allow some measure of private enterprise.
Bogey Wrote:Mercy Wrote:Dios Mio, these stupid people just don't get it.
As long as there is one single sign that Fidel is still alive, nothing will change. Let's wait till the old goat dies then we can discuss changes.
I have heard from friends who have just arrived from visiting that people are becoming bolder, and things are starting to loosen up a bit. Now THAT'S a good sign.
yes most Cuba analysts have said Fidel still casts a very large shadow over everything and his brother will not move decisively until he's gone.
it's clear Fifo would have found the changes hard to stomach, as he found those during the Special Period, bu he had no choice.
He started rolling some of that stuff back a couple of years ago, but methinks Raul will allow some measure of private enterprise.
Bogey,
I wonder what gives you this impression.
The reality is such that there is more police presence on the streets, that the Cubans whose income depends on business done on the street are literally choked to death by never ending checks. People caught with goods above certain limits are immediately charged with speculation and assesed multas on the spot.
I guess you are not up to date with real developements in Cuba Bogey.
The change, if it happens, will not come from Raul for sure.
What you read now is just a wishful thinking.
Van, my understanding is that that is a result of Fidel's crackdown on private enterprise that he launched several years ago (remember the speeches, etc)
the reason I am guessing otherwise is that most Cuba "analysts" opine that Raul wants to liberalize things economically a bit and it's already well known and established that it was Raul who basically pushed for the "reforms" during the Special Period that enabled the regime to survive.
I think while the old coot is still alive and writing his thoughts and opinions from his bed, no one dares challenge and or change anything from the way it was while he ran things in a day to day basis.
we'll see what happens when he croaks.
Bogey,
Actually I am speaking of the latest police harassment, it got really worse since January.
Rememeber one thing, Castro bros played always good cop, bad cop game. Just because, Raul was not visible everyday like Fido and all the so called political analysts wanted him to be the angel of change, does not mean he is. He was the one, who pushed in early days of "revolution" for radical solutions to American interests, American citizens, Cuban "counter-revolutionaries" etc. Even Gaviota, entirely in his hands, although probably the most efficient unit in Cuban tourism industry, was only efficient because it was and is run like a military unit. When you look at it closely it is still just another communist entity, with lots of waste of money and resources. Other Cuban enterprises are just Cuban enterprises, noone accountable for decisions made in the name of revolution, noone responsible for the waste of money, but at the same time with a lot of communist executives getting richer everyday. It is a "grab and run" economy.
Of course in case of any change the new wave of managers will be coming straight from party ranks, because of the connections, but the transitional period will eventually end, and they will be replaced and soon prosecuted. They will be first Cuban millionaires with impeccable business suites on, with mentaility of entitelment after years of unchallenged power, but with changing political situation giving way to a new breed of millionaires coming from CA circles and then within 10 - 15 years the real Cubans from Cuba will take over.
That's a natural scenario. You know it and I know it. Mercy and Pinga think Cuba is not a typical communist country with analogies to the rest of former soviet block countries (sorry to disappoint you Mercy), but it is.
yeah, you're quite right and Raul certainly was the most radical very early on.
Mercy and Pinga are amusing.
and their constant comments about how Cuba is nothing like the former Commie countries are a Fkg joke, since they know NOTHING about the ex Commie countries.
As i once noted, I was awestruck by some of the similarities and memories from my childhood.
mysle ze wiemy lepiej.
Let's hope you are right Vanbeach. Then, within 5 years of the old goat's death, Cuba will be right back on track. Like Prague, Budapest and Poland.
I do hope they can keep the socialized Medicine. It's the only thing they did right.
As for building a Country for the Poor. What they succeeded in doing was making EVERYONE poor. The poor stayed poor, and the rich got poor. Only Fidel and his associates became rich.
It's a game older than prostitution.
So far Fidel and Raul have orchestrated the perfect soft landing/transition. Fidel stays out of the way while people continue to admire his star status and Raul the reformer continues to say "We're working on it" but little changes.
Nothing will happen till Fidel is dead and then I think Raul will have to get out of the way. He can try to manage change and hold back the reins but I think the horses are going to want to run free so maybe Raul will have to jump off and get out of the country.
Amy Chua, fascinating Yale professor, guest on McLaughlin this Sunday
pretty hot young Asian professor.
very intelligent.
and I pretty much agree with what she says (about the type of "democracy" we're "exporting" abroad these days)
I guess she has a book out . "World On Fire". Might have to check it out.
I'd love to be in her classes though
nice to look at.
and listen to.....
hmm.. she's 45. Easily looks 30. actually on McLaughlin, she looks 25
World On Fire" by Amy Chua
A new book argues that when Third World countries embrace democracy and free markets too quickly, ethnic hatred and even genocide can result.
By Michelle Goldberg
Pages 1 2
NothingJanuary 13, 2003 | The case Amy Chua makes in "World On Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global Instability" is so clear and persuasive it almost seems as if it had been obvious all along. Yet her argument, that rapid switches to majoritarian rule and free-market democracy in many Third World countries benefit certain ethnic groups over others and lead to vicious sectarian strife, is quite new, if occasionally overstated. Writers such as Robert Kaplan have long argued that the Western obsession with exporting democracy to countries without the institutions to support it is naive and often dangerous, fostering demagogues and communal hatreds. Chua builds on this argument in an essential way, showing how expanding markets exacerbate the problem by enriching already-dominant minority groups even as democracy empowers angry majorities.
"World On Fire" is about a phenomenon Chua calls "market-dominant minorities," groups like the Chinese in Southeast Asia, Jews in Russia, whites in Zimbabwe and Indians in East Africa and Fiji. Market-dominant minorities control hugely disproportionate percentages of their countries' resources. Filipino Chinese comprise just 1 to 2 percent of the Philippines' population, but control all of the country's major supermarkets, fast-food restaurants and large department stores, and all but one of the nation's banks. A similar situation obtains in Indonesia. Jews make up a similarly tiny proportion of Russia's population, but of the seven "oligarchs" who control virtually all of the country's business, six are Jewish. Lebanese dominate the economies in Sierra Leone and Gambia, while Indians dominate the economy in Kenya, along with a smaller, indigenous minority tribe called the Kikuyu. Similar examples abound worldwide.
It's enormously touchy to talk about the economic element of communal violence, especially regarding Jews, since rhetoric about one ethnic group exploiting another is so often a precursor to atrocity. But that's exactly why Chua's book feels so urgent. No matter how politically incorrect it is to talk about, her book makes clear that minority market domination is a reality in much of the world, one that's tied up in many ways with smoldering group hatreds and explosions of mass slaughter, and one that's made worse by Western policies.
Chua, a professor at Yale Law School, is a careful, precise writer, and she makes it very clear that she's not blaming prosperous ethnic groups for violence directed against them, or blaming capitalism alone for fomenting genocide. It's a point she makes over and over again. (Her lawyerly penchant for summing up and reiterating her main arguments far too many times is the book's greatest flaw.)
"The point, rather, is this," she writes. "In the numerous countries around the world that have pervasive poverty and a market-dominant minority, democracy and markets -- at least in the form in which they are currently being promoted -- can proceed only in deep tension with each other. In such conditions, the combined pursuit of free markets and democratization has repeatedly catalyzed ethnic conflict in highly predictable ways. This has been the sobering lesson of globalization in the last twenty years."
Nevertheless, "World On Fire" is not an anti-globalization screed. Chua is a former Wall Street lawyer who worked to help developing countries privatize their resources, and she continues to believe that, in the long term, markets offer the best hope for developing countries. Her scathing assessment of the way the West has foisted liberalization on the rest of the world is driven not by ideology, but by a careful examination of globalization's unintended consequences.
"Back in the early nineties," she writes, "I believed that the proceeds of privatization, as a World Bank official put it, would go to roads, 'potable water, sewerage, hospitals, and education to the poor.' Like many in the 1990s, however, I was viewing emerging market privatization through a rose-colored lens." Later, she adds, "Even assuming that free market democracy is the optimal end point for most non-Western countries, in the short run markets and democracy are themselves part of the problem."
Explaining why market-dominant minorities exist would probably require another volume, and Chua makes only a cursory attempt to do so. In some cases, of course, it's obvious -- the white minority in South Africa and Zimbabwe accumulated capital and expertise at the expense of the grotesquely exploited majority, who cannot now catch up without massive government help. Elsewhere group prosperity is attributable to superior business networks. Cameroon's Bamileke, for example, "operate an informal capital market so efficient it constantly threatens to put government-owned banks out of business," Chua writes. The reasons for Jewish economic success are more mysterious -- especially in Russia, where they've been repeatedly subjected to vicious pogroms -- and "World On Fire" does little to illuminate them. Chua is less interested in how minority groups come to dominate than what happens when they do.
She argues that when economic liberalization and democracy are rapidly introduced to countries with market-dominant minorities, the two forces necessarily come into conflict. "Markets concentrate enormous wealth in the hands of an 'outsider' minority, fomenting ethnic envy and hatred among often chronically poor majorities," she writes. "Introducing democracy in these circumstances does not transform voters into open-minded cocitizens in a national community. Rather, the competition for votes fosters the emergence of demagogues who scapegoat the resented minority and foment active ethnonationalist movements demanding that the country's wealth and identity be reclaimed by the 'true owners of the nation.'"
In Indonesia, for example, free-market policies undertaken under Gen. Suharto, the U.S.-backed dictator, vastly enriched the country's tiny Chinese minority, who in turn supported the strongman. By 1998, Chua writes, Chinese made up 3 percent of the population but controlled 70 percent of the private economy. That was the year democracy protests and riots forced Suharto to resign. His fall was accompanied by orgies of anti-Chinese violence -- Chinese women began wearing "anti-rape corsets," locked steel chastity belts. "[T]he prevailing view among the pribumi majority was that it was 'worthwhile to lose 10 years of growth to get rid of the Chinese problem once and for all,'" she writes. "Meanwhile, the U.S. State Department called resoundingly for free markets and democratic elections."
Many other countries share elements of this dynamic, though Chua sometimes seems to be stretching her thesis in order to fit in as many places as possible. She's overreaching somewhat when she says, early on, "markets and democracy were among the causes of both the Rwandan and Yugoslavian genocides." Clearly democracy was a factor in both, but the economic factors are much trickier. The gap in status between minority Tutsis and majority Hutus is indeed attributable to globalization, but of the old-fashioned, colonial kind -- Belgian colonizers favored minority Tutsis over majority Hutus because of what was seen as their Caucasian-like features. And while Serbian hatred of the Croats was fanned by Croatian economic dominance, the Bosnians they butchered were as poor as they were. Chua makes these caveats herself in the relevant chapters, but they dilute some of the grand claims she lays out in her introduction.
Still, her larger point, that the policies seen as panaceas by the West can actually make things worse, holds true. Electoral democracy is often touted as an antidote to the tyranny and tribalism ravaging much of the globe. "For globalization's enthusiasts, the cure for group hatred and ethnic violence around the world is straightforward: more markets and more democracy," Chua writes. She notes that after Sept. 11, Thomas Friedman wrote of the Middle East, "Hello? Hello? There's a message here. It's democracy, stupid! Multi-ethnic, pluralistic, free-market democracy."
This one-size-fits-all prescription for curing the world's ills is implicated in the Rwandan genocide of 1994. As Chua writes, Hutu dictator Juvénal Habyarimana, who ruled from 1973 until the early 1990s, may have been corrupt and totalitarian, but he did protect the Tutsi population. Once he responded to Western -- particularly French -- calls to adopt multiparty democracy, though, Hutu supremacy became a potent weapon for Habyarimana's political enemies. The genocidal Hutu Power movement was buoyed on a groundswell of popular support. Meanwhile, Chua points out, the "freedom of the press" encouraged by the West stopped the government from shutting down the hugely influential, rabidly anti-Tutsi newspaper Kangura.
"Sudden political liberalization in the 1990s unleashed long-suppressed ethnic resentments, directly spawning Hutu Power as a potent political force," Chua writes.
The idea that democracy, America's most cherished value, has exacerbated the last century's bloodletting is terrible to contemplate. Yet Chua's book ultimately supplies a tiny measure of hope. Unlike Kaplan, Chua doesn't believe that enlightened autocracy is the answer for the developing world. For her, the problem isn't democracy itself but the speed at which it's implemented. Rushing it, especially without protections for individual rights or institutions for upholding the law, can be dangerous.
Kaplan believes that the right kind of despots can sustain a stable environment for capitalism to flourish, creating the middle-class institutions necessary to sustain democracy. One of his models is prosperous, undemocratic Singapore. Chua's analysis, though, shows us that no amount of economic growth will turn countries that have market-dominant minorities, like Indonesia, into countries like Singapore, that don't. Prosperity and stability won't come to those countries until they find a way to narrow the chasm between rich minorities and poor majorities.
To that end, Chua argues for sweeping reforms that would give disenfranchised populations a stake in their nation's resources, as well as massive affirmative-action policies of the kind being undertaken in South Africa and, with notable success, in Malaysia. Such a policy is a huge departure from the free-market evangelism of people like Thomas Friedman, but one more likely to lead to prosperous societies that can, eventually, turn into real democracies.
Of course, it's not terribly likely that her recommendations are going to be implemented in most places anytime soon. In the end, "World On Fire" is valuable less for its prescriptions than for the perspective it offers on the seemingly incomprehensible violence shaking the world. With the fall of communism and the emergence of al-Qaida, it's no longer fashionable to see ethnic conflict in materialist terms -- the new battles are framed as a clash of civilizations rather than a scramble for resources. It's a scarier opposition, because it's so intractably defiant of reason. "World on Fire" suggests these conflicts might not be so primordial and irrational after all. It might be cold comfort to realize how atavistic enmities abroad have been inflamed by our own government's policies, but at least these policies can, ultimately, still be changed.