Mujtaba Ali mali@media.ucla.edu
Click Here for more articles by Mujtaba Ali Â
President Bush recently affirmed that he would take a hard-line
stance against Fidel Castro’s communist government and
maintain the economic sanctions placed on Cuba 40 years
ago. The sanctions against Cuba were originally intended to
destabilize Castro’s communist government and eventually
cause his downfall. Since their enactment, the sanctions have
completely failed to accomplish their goal. They are a relic
of Cold War mentality and have long outlived any useful
purpose.
The economic problems Cuba faces are due to the four-decade-old
U.S. economic embargo and the weak diplomatic ties with the United
States, not the so-called “dictatorial communist
regime.”
Giving a speech in Miami on Monday, Bush stated that in order
for the U.S. to ease sanctions, Cuba must hold free and open
elections in 2003 with international observers overseeing the
electoral process. But the lack of open elections is not the
foundation of Castro’s power. Sanctions imposed by the U.S.
hypocritically prevent democratic influence from reaching Cuba by
restricting trade. How does Bush expect the Cuban people to taste
democracy while shutting them off from the rest of the world?
The U.S. government’s recent campaign against Cuba has
included allegations of bioterrorism. The State
Department’s John Bolton stated “The United States
believes that Cuba has at least a limited offensive biological
warfare research and development effort” and has
“provided dual-use biotechnology to other rogue
states.” Considering the Bush administration is using these
accusations to maintain sanctions, it is troubling that no evidence
was provided to support them.
The U.S. government defines “dual-use technology”
(technology that may have both helpful and weaponized uses) in a
vague and amusing way. In this case Cuba has developed
sophisticated biotechnology that could be used to treat heart
attacks and viral diseases and develop vaccines. The State
Department, however, believes “rogue states” such as
Iran have purchased this equipment and may or may not use it to
develop weapons.
These arbitrary accusations are at odds with former President
Jimmy Carter’s findings during his goodwill trip to Cuba this
week. Carter, who is pressing the current administration to soften
the embargo, reported no bioterrorism technology is being developed
in Cuba.
While the current U.S. president demonizes Fidel Castro and
accuses Cuba of terrorist links, a former U.S. president advocates
better diplomatic relations and the lifting of the
embargo. Carter’s belief that Cuba is free from
terrorist involvement exposes the arbitrary nature of the United
States’ policy against Cuba.
Cuba does not pose a threat to American security and has not
threatened the United States since the Cold War. President
Bush’s intentions are to use anti-Castro propaganda to
maintain the status quo in United States-Cuba relations. The
difference lies in the fact that Castro is no longer the
“evil communist.” Bush has changed Castro’s
scapegoat role into the “evil terrorist.” Bush
hopes to legitimize his vague War on Terror by making the American
public feel it is vulnerable to a terrorist attack that could come
from as close as 90 miles off the Florida coast.
During his speech, Bush stated “Half a century ago the
hopes for democracy were hijacked by a brutal dictator that cares
everything for his own power and nada for the Cuban
people.”
The United States is hardly qualified to advocate democracy and
human rights in Cuba. Given its historical involvement with Latin
American politics, the United States has demonstrated numerous
times what it considers a “fair and democratic” Latin
American country.
American attempts at “restoring democracy” in Chile,
for example, led to the bloody CIA-sponsored coup that toppled the
democratically elected government of socialist leader Salvador
Allende in 1973. Allende earned the enmity of President Richard
Nixon when he committed the sin of nationalizing Chilean copper
mines owned by American multinational corporations. As a
suitable “democratic” replacement for Allende, the
United States supported General Augusto Pinochet, whose brutal
17-year dictatorship was infamously known for its torture of
political dissidents, assassinations and kidnappings. If this is
the version of Latin American democracy the United States envisions
in Cuba, then the Cuban people are better off with Castro.
The 40-year grudge the United States holds with Cuba is due more
to economic reasons than humanitarian concerns or ideological
goals. Before the Cuban Revolution, the corrupt puppet-leader
Fulgencio Batista allowed U.S. sugar corporations ownership of
thousands of acres of Cuban land and control of several of
Cuba’s industrial enterprises. Fidel Castro seized and
nationalized U.S. possessions when he came into power. The United
States was further embarrassed in its failed coup attempt against
Castro at the Bay of Pigs invasion in 1961. In 1962 the United
States resorted to economic warfare and enforced the full economic
embargo that still exists today.
The Cold War is over, yet the U.S. government continues to
implement an antiquated, generation-old policy. It’s
time for the United States to stop arrogantly intervening in Latin
American politics. Fidel Castro’s power and Cuba’s
stability have not been affected by 40 years of U.S. economic
warfare. It is ridiculous to think that extending the sanctions
will force Cuba to revert to the U.S. government’s skewed
perception of a “democratic state.”