Page 4 - Presbyterian Connection

4 SUMMER 2024
Cuba had exchanged one
form of domination for another
presbyterian.ca
Connection
PRESBYTERIAN
Continued from page 3
an attraction for would-be Ameri- can investors after their Civil War.) After 350 years of this societal straitjacket, many Cubans be- came restless. Merchants were upset at the excessive taxes being sent back to Madrid and legisla- tion prohibiting local businesses from competing with Spain’s monopoly. The examples of the French and American revolu- tions had already showed that major governing systems could be overthrown, providing inspira- tion for those seeking independ- ence. Frustration at the continuing Spanish political, ecclesial and commercial domination contin- ued to grow, made worse by the refusal to grant any degree of au-
tonomy to the colony.
Finally, in 1868, rebellion broke
out, with the first phase of the War for Independence lasting until 1878, and then continuing off and on until 1895. The major push for independence was led by the Cu- ban writer and revolutionary, José Martí. Although killed in battle in 1895 his influence continued, and in 1898 the Spanish forces were over thrown.
But the end of Spanish control did not mean that Cuba was free. The end of Spanish colonialism was replaced by an era of grow- ing U.S. control—in political, mili- tary and commercial matters. In many ways, Cuba had exchanged one form of domination for an- other. American trade interests, combined with geopolitical ex- pansionist goals in Washington, resulted in U.S. intervention in Cuba—an interest that continues to the present.
U.S. interest in Cuba
From U.S. military intervention in Cuba in 1898 to claims by Donald Trump (March 2024) that he will adopt an even tougher policy on Cuba if elected, U.S. interest in Cuba has been a constant threat to Cuban stability. It remains so today.
In fact, U.S. interest in con- trolling Cuba goes back to 1809 when Thomas Jefferson first tried to purchase Cuba from Spain, de- claring, “I have ever looked upon Cuba as the most interesting ad- dition that could ever be made to our system of States.” In 1823, John Quincy Adams likened Cuba to an apple on a tree overhanging the U.S. backyard, noting that if a storm blew it off the tree, “Cuba ... can gravitate only towards the North American Union.”
U.S. troops occupied Cuba
from 1898 to 1902, promoting U.S. investment while controlling the island. Cubans were again treated as second-class citizens. The first two leaders of an “in- dependent” Cuba were not even Cuban: General John Brooke and General Leonard Wood of the oc- cupying U.S. forces.
The political system introduced after “independence” basically outlawed any participation by Afro-Cubans, and catered mainly to the wealthiest, most educated white Cubans. In 1901, the Platt Amendment was signed—by which the U.S. agreed to with- draw military control of Cuba, but allowed U.S. forces to intervene any time there was a threat to stability. They did so, on several occasions. They also retained the military base in Guantánamo, which continues to this day— with 6,000 American personnel on Cuban soil. Unsurprisingly, Cubans would like them to leave their island.
Washington supported sev- eral corrupt administrations in the 20th century, particularly the brutal governments of Machado (1925–33) and Batista (1940–44 and especially 1952–59). Eventu- ally, the Cuban population, frus- trated at the abuses of Batista (whose forces are alleged to have killed 20,000), rose up and over- threw him on January 1, 1959.
Once again, as in 1898, there was a nationalist goal for the insurgents. The revolutionary government was particularly dis- turbed by foreign ownership of arable land (75%), and in particu- lar U.S. control of services (90% of electricity, transportation and water), sugar production (40%), mines (90%) and banking (25% of all deposits). Reforms were introduced nationalizing foreign- owned properties—which mainly affected U.S. interests.
In 1961, the Eisenhower gov- ernment broke diplomatic rela- tions—a situation which existed until Barack Obama reopened them in 2015. During the many decades since the Cuban revolu- tion, Washington has consistently maintained a policy of aggression toward the island.
U.S. policy toward Cuba can best be summarized by a memo from Lester Mallory, Deputy As- sistant Secretary of State for Inter-American Affairs, in April 1960. His memo started by not- ing that since the overwhelming majority of Cubans supported Fidel Castro, the only feasible
solution for Washington was to wreak havoc on the population in an effort to cause internal op- position: His tactic suggested making “the greatest inroads in denying money and supplies to Cuba, to decrease monetary and real wages, to bring about hun- ger, desperation and overthrow of government.” That has been the basis of U.S. policy since—with the clear exception of the Obama presidency.
Many people have forgot- ten the secret war against Cuba sponsored by Washington against Cuba. The many assas- sination attempts against Fidel Castro, organized by the CIA and suppor ted by extremist Cu- ban exile groups (mainly in the 1960s), are wor th remembering. By any definition these were acts of terrorism, often sponsored by the U.S. government.
To make matters worse, the economic embargo against Cuba has been in place since 1962 and has a major impact on living conditions for all Cubans. The UN estimated in 2020 that it had cost Cuba $144 billion (U.S.).
There was a huge improve- ment in bilateral relations with Cuba during the Obama years (2009–17). Diplomatic relations were renewed, U.S. tourism in- creased dramatically, trade and investment grew, as did educa- tional and cultural ties. Restric- tions on remittances from Cuban Americans were eased. Both countries reopened embassies, and in 2016 Obama became the first sitting president to visit Cuba since 1928. He also took Cuba off the list of countries allegedly sup- porting terrorism.
The Trump administration, keen to obtain political support from Cuban exiles in Florida, intro- duced several policies designed to make life difficult for Cuba. He sought to reverse all of the Oba- ma-era changes, and reimposed
sanctions on Cuba’s economy. He also placed sanctions on Ven- ezuela, seeking to cut off oil sup- plies from Cuba’s ally.
People-to-people contacts, and educational and cultural ex- changes, were stopped. U.S. tourism, including cruise traffic, was outlawed—which is why we Canadians don’t see Americans on the beaches there. Americans travelling to Cuba were banned from staying at hundreds of hotels linked to the Cuban government. Remittance funds were severely limited, and over 400 Western Un- ion offices in Cuba closed. In the last week of office, Trump again placed Cuba on the terrorist-sup- por ting list, causing major com- mercial difficulties for Cuba.
The Biden administration has done very little to change the Trump policy on Cuba, despite an early commitment to do so, and again has been fearful of losing support in voter-rich Florida. His approach to Cuba is seen as be- ing “Trump Lite.” Little is expect- ed if Biden wins a second term. A Trump electoral victory would re- sult in a major deterioration of re- lations, and the social cost would be disastrous.
Concluding thoughts
The situation in Cuba at present is desperate. Milk powder for ba- bies is hard to find, and flour is in short supply. Gas prices were recently increased 500%. Inflation is over 300% annually. And all this on an average salary of just over $10 a month (U.S.). It’s not sur- prising that over 400,000 Cubans have left for the U.S. in the last two years.
How did it come to this?
To a large extent, government planning is at fault. The bureau- cracy in Cuba is immense, rigid and used to its privileges. In addi- tion, economic planning has been poor—with excessive amounts spent on hotel construction, and a relative pittance on agriculture. As a result, while there are scores of 5-star hotels dotted around its fabulous beaches, Cuba is forced to import 80% of the food con- sumed on the island.
But there are also historical factors that need to be borne in mind. Here in Canada, we are well aware of the scandalous abuses of human rights faced histori- cally by First Nations people. The same—and more—can be said about the rigid societal approach imposed upon the Cuban popula- tion by four centuries of colonial exploitation.
What we also need to under- stand is the role of U.S. policy to- ward the island for over 60 years. The unjust embargo, which was condemned last year at the United Nations General Assembly by 187 nations (with only two, the Unit- ed States and Israel, opposed) speaks volumes of the universal rejection of U.S. policy. That is a terrible injustice and must be re- versed.
Cuba is complex and contra- dictory. Its people are suffering, and we would do well to sup- port them to overcome this long, deeply rooted crisis and enjoy some peace. Martin Luther King, Jr., put it well: “True peace is not merely the absence of tension: it is the presence of justice.” Cu- bans need that now.