Cuba: a curious relic of 20th-century history

The Times August 10, 2006

Cuba: a curious relic of 20th-century history
Thomas Catan
The Left boasts that Castro brought his people literacy: but what’s the
point if they can’t read what they like?

COMMUNISM always seemed far more appealing in the Cuban setting of sun,
sea and salsa than it did in Siberia. And Fidel Castro is incomparably
more charismatic than the succession of ailing party apparatchiks who
ruled the Soviet Union before Mikhail Gorbachev came along.

This helps to explain why the Cuban leader retains his share of admirers
around the world despite 47 years of authoritarian, one-party rule. But
has the Cuban experience of communism really been any different to that
of the Soviet Union? What is the record of the world’s longest active ruler?

As he turns 80 in his hospital bed on Sunday, Castro can look back on
some unquestionable achievements. For a start he has defied the world’s
most powerful nation, just 90 miles from his shores, and lived to tell
the tale. Cuban claims that he has survived 638 assassination attempts
seem like a stretch of the imagination. But even considering plots we do
know about — the deadly cigars, skin diseases and explosive shellfish
dreamt up by the CIA — Castro seems justified in declaring that “If
surviving assassination were an Olympic event, I would win the gold medal”.

El Comandante has clung on through nearly five decades of economic
sanctions and a US-sponsored invasion attempt. But beyond sheer
survival, he has some real accomplishments to point to. Under his rule,
the impoverished Caribbean island has created health and education
systems that would be the envy of far wealthier nations. Cubans enjoy
the same life expectancy as Americans — just over 77 years — despite
having less than a tenth the income per head.

The country scores highly on other World Bank development indicators,
too. It has a lower infant mortality rate than the US and higher
immunisation rates. Similar numbers in both countries attend school and
there is near full literacy on the island.

Street crime is rare in Havana, in contrast to other Latin American
cities such as Mexico City or São Paulo. In part that is due to his
ubiquitous security forces, but Cuba also lacks the gaping income
inequalities that give rise to crime in the rest of Latin America.

Less tangibly, Castro has given Cubans a real sense of national
identity. Even those who long ago tired of his rule cannot help but be
stirred by each new episode in his long-running David-and-Goliath show
with the US.

Is Cuba the socialist paradise its defenders make out? Far from it. Even
on its own terms, Castro’s regime ran aground long ago. The revolution
was founded on principles of social justice, on equality between its
citizens and the fulfilment of their basic needs. Above all, Cuba was to
be independent of other powers. By those criteria, Castro has not
performed well.

Cubans complain bitterly that their meagre state rations are not enough
to survive, forcing them to turn to the black market, to hustling
tourists or to prostitution. Things have improved somewhat since the
hungry years that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union, until then
Cuba’s principal benefactor. But now the country depends on the largesse
of Hugo Chávez instead. The Venezuelan President props up the regime
with more than $2 billion a year in deferred, forgiven or subsidised
payments on oil or other exports.

Even so, Cuba’s infrastructure is in a pitiful state after five decades
of economic mismanagement. Old Havana has moved well beyond the
picturesque decay of picture postcards. Many buildings in the Unesco
World Heritage site are in danger of being lost for ever.

Cuba may not have the disparities of wealth of other Latin American
countries, but not everyone is equal. In particular, the black and
mulatto majority remain the poorest people in Cuba, while those in power
are almost exclusively white. Foreign tourism has also created a visible
two-tier system and much discontent.

Cubans are well educated, but they cannot speak their minds. Castro does
not allow other political parties, rallies or free elections. Those who
voice opinions he does not agree with are driven from the country or
thrown into jail.

According to Human Rights Watch, Castro’s regime “denies its citizens
basic rights to free expression, association, assembly, movement and a
fair trial” and imposes its will through “surveillance, detentions,
house arrests, travel restrictions, criminal prosecutions and
politically motivated dismissals from employment”. Amnesty International
says that there are up to 70 political prisoners in Cuba; Human Rights
Watch puts that figure at more than 300.

Castro bars Cubans from leaving the country without government approval.
Those caught trying to escape are punished with hefty fines or thrown in
jail. Cubans are not allowed to read, listen to or view foreign media.
Only state-controlled television or newspapers, extolling the virtues of
the Cuban leader, are permitted. Private citizens are banned from buying
computers or viewing the internet without a special permit. Some Cubans
find ways around the regulations but, by and large, the Government has
succeeded in restricting access. In 2004, there were only 13 internet
users per 1,000 people in Cuba, compared with 119 in Brazil and 135 in
Mexico.

Cuba has always been admired for its rich culture: its music, film and
literature have been an inspiration around the world. But in that field
Havana is a shadow of its former self; the State’s monopoly on culture
and ideas makes it a poor place to be for free-thinking artists or
intellectuals. The media repeat a single, state-approved view of the
world, insulting the intelligence of its well-educated population. Only
artists willing to propagate the cult of Castro are able to get ahead.

During the 1980s, one could still conceivably argue that Cuba’s
dictatorship was preferable to its US-backed counterparts in Chile,
Argentina, Nicaragua or El Salvador, which went one step farther by
murdering thousands of their citizens. No longer. As the rest of Latin
America has moved to democracy, Cubans have been stuck in an
anachronistic curiosity, a relic of 20th-century history. The
frustration is obvious.

None of this means that Cubans are ready to embrace the US. Many in
their thirties and forties remain fiercely nationalistic and resentful
of what they see as American meddling. Cubans also fear that Miami
exiles will march back into the island, taking power with the backing of
the US Government and reclaiming property expropriated half a century ago.

Castro has clung on for so long in part because the US has provided him
with so many propaganda weapons to rally Cubans to his side. Despite
initial signs that he was falling into the same, time-honoured trap,
President Bush has rightly declared that Cubans alone should decide
their future — not Washington or the exiles in Miami. Whether or not he
returns from hospital, Castro’s illness represents the beginning of the
end of his totalitarian regime. Left to their own devices, Cubans will
move towards a more open society. Any outside inteference can only
extend the old regime’s life.

Thomas Catan is Madrid correspondent of The Times

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2306058,00.html