Reply-To: "pedro martori"
From: "pedro martori"
Subject: Cuba's lesson for Iraq
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2720.3000
X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2727.1300
Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:06:29 -0500
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sat, 15 Nov 2003 10:06:22 EST
Organization: Bell Sympatico
Subject: Cuba's lesson for Iraq / Peter Foster
Date: Thursday, November 13, 2003 10:12 PM
Cuba's lesson for Iraq
Friday, November 07, 2003
If Fidel Castro was miffed at not making the "Axis of Evil," he must
have been apoplectic this week at being relegated by President George
W. Bush to a mere "outpost of oppression," shoved in the corner of the
Dictators' Waxwork Museum alongside Mr. Mugabe.
Compared with Iran, Iraq and North Korea, Cuba doesn't cut it as a
global threat any more, but it is important to remember that it once
did. El Maximum Lider certainly remains a thorn in the side of the
U.S. administration, but primarily because of pressures from the
powerful Cuban-American community to continue turning the screws on
his tropical Gulag.
President Bush recently announced a tightening of restrictions on
travel by Americans to Cuba. Significantly, however, the funds for
this measure have been withheld by Congress. There appears to be a
growing belief, even among Cuban Americans, that the time may have
come to end the 40-year embargo, whose main function has been to
provide Mr. Castro with an excuse for his country's abysmal condition.
Insofar as he has been able to survive for so long, Mr. Castro has to
thank a group of countries that -- not entirely coincidentally -- are
opposed to the U.S. presence in Iraq. These consist primarily of
Russia (at least until 1989), Canada and the countries of the European
But Cuba remains more than a reminder of the ugly bedfellows made by
anti-Americanism. It is an historical object lesson in the problems of
intervention and the dangers of irresolution.
Significantly, the United States was drawn into invading Cuba 105
years ago by a combination of terrorist atrocity and the desire to
rescue a people from oppression. The explosion of USS Maine in Havana
Harbour provided the casus belli for a "splendid little war," as
William Randolph Hearst put it, against the remnants of the imploding
The Americans swept into Cuba with typical can-do technical know-how
and set about cleaning the place up. Their reward was bitter
resentment. The Americans found themselves embroiled in Cuban politics
for the following 50 years, inevitably blamed as a succession of
presidents looted the treasury, but condemned even more roundly when
it intervened directly.
Cuba's last-but-one dictator, Fulgencio Batista, fell when the United
States withdrew its support. Into the vacuum came Fidel Castro,
claiming to stand for freedom and democracy. He made his predecessors
look like pikers. He imprisoned and/or killed opponents, expropriated
business, stole private property and installed a communist
President Kennedy's unwillingness to take on Mr. Castro led not merely
to the failure of the Bay of Pigs, but also to the Cuban Missile
Crisis. That was when Mr. Castro -- seeking to install Soviet nuclear
weapons -- really did represent the biggest imaginable threat to U.S.
security. As part of his deal with Soviet premier Nikita Khrushchev,
Mr. Kennedy promised to keep American hands off Cuba, thus condemning
10 million people to 40 years of repression. So far.
But what if President Kennedy hadn't chickened out at the Bay of Pigs?
One can imagine that "world opinion," the "international community"
and the UN would have had a field day condemning U.S. "aggression,"
"imperialism" and "high-handedness." How, they would have asked, could
President Kennedy believe that Fidel Castro was planning to harbour
weapons of mass destruction? Where were they? Had the president been
reading Our Man in Havana, Graham Greene's comic novel, in which a
down-at-heel expatriate manufactures missile plans out of vacuum
cleaner specifications in order to justify a stipend from the British
Secret Service? Concrete silos? Nonsense, they were the foundations
for new orphanages.
We may be sure that any U.S. "occupation force" would have been
subject to attack. Perhaps idealistic young people would have made
their way to the island, seeing a new Spanish Civil War in the making.
Perhaps the Americans would have suffered significant casualties. The
New York Times, which had pretty much been Fidel Castro's PR organ in
the years before he came to power, would undoubtedly have found fault
with the United State's every move (Its Cuban correspondent, Herbert
Matthews, deserves a spot on the journalistic wall of shame right
alongside Stalin's lickspittle Walter Duranty). Perhaps the Americans
would have withdrawn. Perhaps Mr. Castro might have regained power.
Perhaps the Russians might have managed to get their missiles on the
island after all. And perhaps world history might have turned out very
Failure to act can have as profound consequences as acting. Certainly,
president Kennedy's desertion of Cuban exiles on the beach at the Bay
of Pigs had consequences. It led to nuclear standoff; it allowed Fidel
Castro to strut his stuff and extend communist infiltration to Angola
and elsewhere. It left a nation under a communist dictator.
As it was, the United States was damned when it didn't. So perhaps it
should have been prepared to be damned when it did, just as it is
being damned in Iraq by Fidel Castro's investors and trading partners
© Copyright 2003 National Post
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.535 / Virus Database: 330 - Release Date: 11/1/2003