Fidel Castro Resigns as Cuba’s President - NY Times report

McKinley Jr.’s review of Fidel Castro’s role in the leadership of the Cuban socialist revolution is unusual for its candid admission of the revolution’s accomplishments over the last fifty years.

Castro’s record, he writes, “has been a mix of great social achievements, but a dismal economic performance that has mired most Cubans in poverty. He succeeded in establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.”

Just prior to making that observation the journalist acknowledged that the US had imposed “decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.”

Readers accustomed to thinking outside the box will likely ponder the question as to why the United States of America, with all its enormous economic and natural resources, has been unable to make similar social advances such as “establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.”

McKinley Jr. is careful in his own way to stay within the constraints of official US mythology about Cuba-US relations, dutifully blaming Castro for the breakdown of relations with Washington five decades ago. He writes:

“The charismatic Cuban leader seized power in January 1959 after waging a guerrilla war against the then-dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban constitution and hold elections.

“But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of communism and allied the island with the Soviet Union. He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the fall of 1962, when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 90 miles off the American shores. He weathered an American-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

“Those actions earned him the permanent enmity of Washington and led the United States to impose decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.”

McKinley Jr. fails to mention an important detail when he mentions Cuba’s alliance with the Soviet Union. It followed a rapid succession of hostile US moves such as the cancellation of the sugar quota and refusal of US oil giants to refine oil. The US measures were taken as punishment for the land reform that infringed on the so-called property rights of wealthy US citizens and of their friends from the old Batista dictatorship.

The Times writer also leaves out such salient historical facts as the US sponsored “Bay of Pigs” invasion. Washington drove Cuba into its strategic alliance and subsequent economic reliance on the Soviet Union. It pined for a victory of Stalinist forces in Cuba, the kind of bureaucrats that the US is highly skilled at dealing with ever since the wartime alliance with Stalin. But that did not happen.

Moscow-inspired Stalinist elements in Cuba did rear their heads, but were quickly isolated and politically defeated. The leadership of the revolution remained in the hands of genuine Marxists whose most representative and prominent advocates were Fidel Castro and Che Guevara. Che's influence remains powerful as last year's commemoration in Santa Clara demonstrated (see my article Our 21st century Zimmerwald, October 16th 2007, at http://www.forumdesalternatives.org/EN/readarticle.php?article_id=4455 )

Castro did not bring the world to the brink of nuclear war. Washington did.

McKinley Jr. forgets to mention that the US had placed nuclear weapons in Turkey, across the Black Sea from the USSR’s southwestern flank and major ice-free southern ports. Moscow decided to place nuclear weapons in Cuba as a means of pressuring the US to remove their missiles from Turkey. Cuba agreed, but wanted to do this openly and not in secret, as Moscow had insisted. Washington and Moscow finally reached an agreement after Kennedy had placed a naval blockade around Cuba and threatened nuclear war. The decision to remove the missiles was reached without consulting Cuba, a violation of its sovereignty that the small Caribbean nation denounced before world public opinion.

The Times writer notes that Castro “never broke the island’s dependence on commodities like sugar, tobacco and nickel, nor did he succeed in industrializing the nation so that Cuba could compete in the world market with durable goods. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of its aid to the island, Cuba has limped along economically, relying mostly on tourism and money sent home from exiles to get hard currency.”

This is partly true, but the same can be said for most third world countries, none of which have suffered a permanent US economic embargo and relentless hostility. Some of the favored “democracies” of the US in Latin America, such as El Salvador, are now completely dependent on family remittances from immigrant workers in the US and on US military aid. None of them can claim the social achievements of Cuba, accomplished despite economic sabotage directed from Washington. Moreover, many of them are now beneficiaries of aid from Cuba in the form of medical and educational personnel and programs such as Operation Miracle (Operación Milagro) that has restored sight to tens of thousands of Latin Americans.

Had McKinley Jr. included some of that information in his review of Castro’s performance readers might be better able to appreciate why, as he admits, “Castro’s willingness to stand up to the United States and break free of American influence, even if it meant allying Cuba with another superpower, has been an inspiration to many Latin Americans, among them the new crop of left-leaning heads of state like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil.”

More importantly, Fidel Castro has been an inspiration millions of workers, campesinos, intellectuals, and artists in Indo-Afro-Latin America ever since the 1959 victory. As the Patria Grande (our Indo-Afro-Latin America south of the Rio Bravo) has moved left in recent years, grassroots admiration and respect for Cuba and its leadership have grown immensely.

Fidel’s letter declining re-nomination to the presidency of the socialist republic will only strengthen and consolidate that trend. It is one more powerful indication of the democratic and mature political culture produced by the revolution and sustained by Cuba’s highly educated and politically sophisticated population.

Felipe Stuart
Managua

PS

Castro's letter to the nation explaining why he will not accept another term as president of the Council of State is available in English in the Blog post immediately below.

Or from Granma International at:
http://www.granma.cu/ingles/2008/febrero/mar19/mensaje-i.html

It can also be found in Spanish, French, German, Portuguese, and Italian on the Granma International site.

Below is the New York Times article by JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/world/americas/20castro.html?ref=world

February 20, 2008
Fidel Castro Resigns as Cuba’s President
By JAMES C. McKINLEY Jr.

MEXICO CITY — Fidel Castro stepped down Tuesday morning as the president of Cuba after a long illness, according to Granma, the official publication of the Cuban Communist Party. His resignation ends one of the longest tenures as one of the most all-powerful communist heads of state in the world.

In late July 2006, Mr. Castro, who is 81, handed over power temporarily to his brother, Raúl Castro, 76, and a few younger cabinet ministers, after an acute infection in his colon forced him to undergo emergency surgery. Despite numerous surgical procedures since then, he has never fully recovered, but he has remained active in running government affairs from behind the scenes.

Now, just days before the national assembly is to meet to select a new head of state, Fidel Castro resigned permanently in a letter to the nation, and signaled his willingness to let a younger generation assume power. He said his failing health made it impossible to return as president.

“I will not aspire to, neither will I accept — I repeat I will not aspire to, neither will I accept — the position of President of the Council of State and Commander in chief,” he wrote.

He added: “It would betray my conscience to occupy a responsibility that requires mobility and the total commitment that I am not in the physical condition to offer.”

President Bush, traveling in Rwanda on a tour of African nations, greeted the news by saying that Mr. Castro’s resignation should be the beginning a democratic transition in Cuba that would lead to free elections. “The United States will help the people of Cuba realize the blessings of liberty,” he said.

Mr. Bush called on Cuba to release political prisoners and to begin building “institutions necessary for democracy that eventually will lead to free and fair elections.”

But the announcement puts Raúl Castro in position to be anointed as the Cuban head of state when the National Assembly meets on Sunday, cementing the power structure that has run the country since his brother fell ill.

Fidel Castro’s unexpected announcement left unclear the roles that other high-level government ministers — among them the vice president, Carlos Lage Davila, and the foreign minister, Felipe Perez Roque — would play in the new government.

Mr. Castro also indicated that he is not fading into the sunset, but would continue to be a force in Cuban politics through his writings, just as he has over the last year and a half. “I am not saying goodbye to you,” he wrote. “I only wish to fight as a soldier of ideas.”

That statement raised the possibility that little would change after Sunday’s vote, that Cuba would continue to be ruled in essence by two presidents, with Raúl Castro on stage while Fidel Castro lurks in the wings. At times over the last year and a half, the current government has seemed paralyzed when the two men disagreed. For his part, Mr. Castro has sent several signals in recent months that it was time for a younger generation to take the helm. He said in December, for example, “My primary duty is not to weld myself to offices, much less obstruct the path of younger people.”

In Tuesday’s letter, he expressed confidence that the country would be in goods hands with a government composed of elements of “the old guard” and “others who were very young when the first stage of the revolution began.”

Mr. Castro asserted he declined to step down earlier to avoid dealing a blow to the Cuba government before “the people” were ready for a traumatic change “in the middle of the battle” with the United States over control of the country’s future. “To prepare the people for my absence, psychologically and politically, was my first obligation after so many years of struggle,” he said.

The charismatic Cuban leader seized power in January 1959 after waging a guerrilla war against the then-dictator Fulgencio Batista, promising to restore the Cuban constitution and hold elections.

But he soon turned his back on those democratic ideals, embraced a totalitarian brand of communism and allied the island with the Soviet Union. He brought the world to the brink of nuclear war in the fall of 1962, when he allowed Russia to build missile launching sites just 90 miles off the American shores. He weathered an American-backed invasion and used Cuban troops to stir up revolutions in Africa and Latin America.

Those actions earned him the permanent enmity of Washington and led the United States to impose decades of economic sanctions that Mr. Castro and his followers maintain have crippled Cuba’s economy and have kept their socialist experiment from succeeding completely.

The sanctions also proved handy to Mr. Castro politically. He cast every problem Cuba faced as part of a larger struggle against the United States and blamed the abject poverty of the island on the “imperialists” to the north.

For good or ill, Mr. Castro is without a doubt the most important leader to emerge from Latin America since the wars of independence of the early 19th century, not only reshaping Cuban society but providing inspiration for leftists across Latin America and in other parts of the world.

His record has been a mix of great social achievements, but a dismal economic performance that has mired most Cubans in poverty. He succeeded in establishing universal health care, providing free education through college and largely rooting out racism.

But he never broke the island’s dependence on commodities like sugar, tobacco and nickel, nor did he succeed in industrializing the nation so that Cuba could compete in the world market with durable goods. Since the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of its aid to the island, Cuba has limped along economically, relying mostly on tourism and money sent home from exiles to get hard currency.

Yet Mr. Castro’s willingness to stand up to the United States and break free of American influence, even if it meant allying Cuba with another superpower, has been an inspiration to many Latin Americans, among them the new crop of left-leaning heads of state like Hugo Chavez of Venezuela, Evo Morales of Bolivia, and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva of Brazil..

Though he never restored democracy and has ruled with absolute power, in the minds of many Latin Americans, he stood in stark contrast to right-wing dictators like the one he overthrew, who often put the interests of business leaders and the foreign policy goals of Washington above the interests of their poorest constituents.

Whether Mr. Castro’s remaking of Cuban society will survive the current transition remains to be seen. Some experts note Raúl Castro is more pragmatic and willing to admit mistakes than his brother. He has given signals he might try to follow the Chinese example of state-sponsored capitalism.

Others predict that, without Fidel Castro’s charismatic leadership, the government will have to make fundamental changes to the economy or face a rising tide of unrest among rank-and-file Cubans.

Graham Bowley contributed reporting from New York.