Cuban president Fidel Castro's resignation from two of his three leadership posts, together with the appointment of his younger brother, Raul, as his successor, marks the end of an era ... sort of. Raul replaced Fidel as president of the Councils of Ministers and of State, but not as first secretary of the Cuban Communist Party. And, in a scene worthy of the glory years of Stalinism, Raul received the unanimous permission of Cuba's "parliament" to consult with Fidel on all major issues.
As long as Fidel is around -- writing, meeting foreign dignitaries, and weighing in on everything from ethanol to the US presidential campaign -- two things will remain clear.
First, Raul will barely be able to budge even on the modest, strictly economic and regulatory reforms that he hopes, somewhat naively, will put food back on Cubans' table.
ILLUSTRATION: MOUNTAIN PEOPLE
Second, while the succession arrangement that the Castros designed years ago has the advantage of stability and predictability, Raul will be unable to replace the old guard with younger leaders -- his successor in the Armed Forces is 72 and his vice president is 77. Doing so would give whomever he chooses an edge when Raul, who is 76, passes on, and he and Fidel do not necessarily agree on who should come next.
Raul's strategy is to pursue a Vietnamese or Chinese solution: pro-market economic reforms under continued communist rule, with no progress on democracy or human rights. For those in the US who have rightly concluded that the half-century trade embargo has proved counterproductive, this is an appealing halfway response that provides an alibi for moderation: one day, economic reforms will bring political change. For Latin American pragmatists, always fearful of Cuban fifth columnists, it offers a way to square the circle: encouraging change in Cuba without going too far. And, for some European governments, it is a typical hands-off remedy that places the problem squarely in the US' lap.
But the Vietnamese or Chinese roads are unacceptable in Latin America, which has made huge progress in transforming advances in democracy and respect for human rights into a regional legal order that goes beyond national sovereignty or the sacrosanct principle of nonintervention. After decades of coups, dictatorships, torture and disappearances, Latin America today, while not devoid of these plagues, has built a number of firewalls to forestall them.
Accepting a Cuban exception would represent an enormous setback. What will deter the next Central American dictator and murderer if the Cubans are given a free pass? Invoking pragmatism to justify continued human rights violations in Cuba merely because economic reforms might dissuade a mass exodus to Mexico and Florida is a bad idea.
Mexico has seemed especially tempted to return to its Cuban complicity of the past. It appears that during an upcoming visit to Havana, the Mexican foreign minister will not meet with local dissidents, breaking with precedents established since 1993.
There are sound reasons to set a timetable for Cuba's return to the Latin American democratic fold, without imposing elections as a first step or precondition. Indeed, free and fair elections and full respect for human rights can come at the end of the road -- if that end is clearly established.
What would be unacceptable are the two extremes: Making an immediate transition to democratic rule a precondition for normalization of relations with the US and re-entering the Latin American community, or exempting Cuba from the obligation to adhere to democratic principles and practices on the grounds that it is somehow different.
In 1953, Fidel Castro, in what is probably the best-known speech in Latin American political history, proclaimed in court that history would absolve him. In fact, history will judge him, and his nearly 50 years in power, only when the results are in: when the initial achievements in health and education and combating inequality are evaluated according to international standards and with the transparency to which the rest of the region's countries are subject.
Only then will we know if the trade-off at least made sense, even if for many it was unacceptable: authentic social justice and progress in exchange for authoritarian rule, international ostracism and a cultural desert.
Jorge Castaneda, former Mexican foreign minister, is a professor of politics and Latin American studies at New York University.
Copyright: Project Syndicate
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS