Growing up in the 1950s and 1960s, late Cuban president Fidel Castro tended to feature in the most vivid part of the era’s backdrop. He was emblematic of the international rise of communism: He was as vigorous and charismatic as a revolutionary leader should be and seemed intent on creating a new society based on the principle of “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” China and the Soviet Union were communist, as was eastern Europe, and the creed was on the march in Asia and Latin America — led by Castro.
I remember, as a schoolboy, listening intently to the radio.
Was then-US president John F. Kennedy going to unleash a nuclear war in response to the Soviet Union shipping nuclear warheads to Cuba?
Illustration: Mountain People
Castro had led a revolution and established the Caribbean’s only communist state and now he was colluding with the Russians in creating the capacity in the US’ backyard to attack them with Soviet nuclear missiles, or create a system of better self-defense, depending on which side you were on.
The UK had to be on the US’, but for a day or two Britons feared a nuclear holocaust unless then-Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev backed off.
I was frightened that I would not make it to adulthood.
Not only were these enemy states that could trigger the end of humanity in a nuclear war, China and the Soviet Union were both tyrannous dictatorships that denied fundamental freedoms and human rights. The UK had to make common cause with the US to deter them militarily and ideologically, and alongside that weed out communist elements in British society, whether turncoat spies or trade unionists.
They were deluded quislings bent on undermining Britain from within to create a British communist dictatorship.
However, Castro, and perhaps more importantly, his right-hand man and revolutionary icon Ernesto “Che” Guevara, were ambassadors for what seemed like a different kind of communism. They planted doubts in the minds of young Britons. While Russian tanks crushed the Hungarians and, later, former Czech president Alexander Dubcek’s Prague Spring and Mao Zedong’s (毛澤東) Red Guards committed countless atrocities, Cuba seemed to represent something different. Maybe communism did not have to collapse into gulags, prison camps, thought control and atrocity after atrocity. Maybe there was a different vision of society than exploitative capitalism or tyrannous communism. Israel’s kibbutz, representing a new form of communal shared living, and Cuba’s new socialist order might — just might — represent a future in which the idealistic could believe.
After all, former Cuban president Fulgencio Batista’s regime that Castro and Guevara had challenged and overthrown was corrupt from top to bottom. The oppressed peasantry had given the insurgent revolutionaries safe homes and risked their lives, too — the Cuban revolution seemed a genuine revolution from below. Fidel and Che rewarded the Cuban people by breaking up the great estates and handing the land over to those who worked it. They launched a gigantic program of education to eliminate illiteracy. They made sure no one went hungry. They created the best system of free public healthcare in Latin America.
The deep flaws inherent in being a totalitarian one-party state — with its denial of core freedoms and zero constitutional checks and balances — were yet to show through. Castro’s Cuba seemed self-evidently better than what had preceded it and much better than the rest of Latin America through which Che had ridden in his famous motorcycle journey, appalled by the poverty he encountered. However, this was the capitalist system that US defense and foreign policy was bent on supporting, propping up dictators all over Latin America — and to which Fidel had dedicated himself to challenging.
The years 1968 and 1969 seem a long time ago now, but in that joyous expression of youth, counterculture, some of the best rock ’n’ roll ever played, Woodstock, the student protests in Paris, the rise of feminism, US draft dodgers flooding Europe, Fidel and Che commanded a unique place. It was routine for stalls at the great festivals to sell T-shirts emblazoned with their faces, together with the iconic cap and cigar. They had become an essential ingredient of the counterculture alchemy, the face of revolution, the idea in the back of Rolling Stones Mick Jagger’s and Keith Richards’ minds when they wrote You Can’t Always Get What You Want and Street Fighting Man.
How we danced and how most of us got high. We were the insurgents fighting for liberty against social oppression as we wore our hair long, experimented with sex and drugs and lived our lives according to the rules we had made.
However, as the late and brilliant Sam Beer wrote in Britain Against Itself: The Political Contradictions of Collectivism, paradoxically we were laying the cultural basis of the rise of former British prime minister Margaret Thatcher and former US president Ronald Reagan’s neoliberal economic policies.
When they spoke of the need for more liberty to allow people more bandwidth to live as they chose, it chimed, echoing the great anthems of the 1960s.
The backdrop to our lives was changing. Economically, in both Cuba and in Britain, collectivism was running into trouble — the winter of discontent in Britain and economic stagnation in Cuba. News was seeping out about the extent of repression, dysfunction and atrocity in China and the Soviet Union. Books on revolutionary guerrillas and new visions of society gave way to Solzhenitsyn’s account of life in Soviet prison camps — The Gulag Archipelago. Libertarianism was being incubated. China’s miracle growth was not the result of its communism: It was because it was embracing markets and capitalism.
The Soviet Union collapsed; Chinese capitalism, albeit with Leninist overtones, has propelled it to joint world economic leadership. Castro’s Cuba began to look forlorn and backward as Latin America addressed its poverty not by revolution, but by embracing markets. Castro, aging and ill, retained remnants of his charisma over these past few years, but his gaunt frame and wide, non-seeing eyes betokened a world that was past.
There was huge relief when US President Barack Obama dropped the US blockade and restored diplomatic relationships; at last Cuba might start to trade with the world and get rich. When Mick Jagger, an admirer of Thatcher, and the Stones played in Cuba earlier this year, the irony was complete. The insurgent rock band had long ago transmuted into pro-capitalist entrepreneurs, even as they sang about revolution. Now Cuba would tread the same path.
And yet we did dance for liberty and freedom, but we also danced for a world in which, as Fidel proclaimed, we looked out for each other. Most Cubans want to retain the great egalitarian legacy he has left, even while they try to combine it with a more dynamic economy and genuine political freedoms. The dream remains to combine all three. I dreamed it then. I dream it now.
Could Asia be on the verge of a new wave of nuclear proliferation? A look back at the early history of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), which recently celebrated its 75th anniversary, illuminates some reasons for concern in the Indo-Pacific today. US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin recently described NATO as “the most powerful and successful alliance in history,” but the organization’s early years were not without challenges. At its inception, the signing of the North Atlantic Treaty marked a sea change in American strategic thinking. The United States had been intent on withdrawing from Europe in the years following
My wife and I spent the week in the interior of Taiwan where Shuyuan spent her childhood. In that town there is a street that functions as an open farmer’s market. Walk along that street, as Shuyuan did yesterday, and it is next to impossible to come home empty-handed. Some mangoes that looked vaguely like others we had seen around here ended up on our table. Shuyuan told how she had bought them from a little old farmer woman from the countryside who said the mangoes were from a very old tree she had on her property. The big surprise
The issue of China’s overcapacity has drawn greater global attention recently, with US Secretary of the Treasury Janet Yellen urging Beijing to address its excess production in key industries during her visit to China last week. Meanwhile in Brussels, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen last week said that Europe must have a tough talk with China on its perceived overcapacity and unfair trade practices. The remarks by Yellen and Von der Leyen come as China’s economy is undergoing a painful transition. Beijing is trying to steer the world’s second-largest economy out of a COVID-19 slump, the property crisis and
Former president Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) trip to China provides a pertinent reminder of why Taiwanese protested so vociferously against attempts to force through the cross-strait service trade agreement in 2014 and why, since Ma’s presidential election win in 2012, they have not voted in another Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) candidate. While the nation narrowly avoided tragedy — the treaty would have put Taiwan on the path toward the demobilization of its democracy, which Courtney Donovan Smith wrote about in the Taipei Times in “With the Sunflower movement Taiwan dodged a bullet” — Ma’s political swansong in China, which included fawning dithyrambs