56 Foreign Policy

Nearly 50 years after a small island nation embarked on one of history’s most

radical social experiments, it’s time to measure the results. Does Fidel Castro’s

exit offer Cubans a long-awaited chance for freedom and prosperity, or merely

mark the end of an era in which Cuba saw unprecedented success? One of

Castro’s harshest critics squares off with one of his foremost advocates.

After nearly 50 years of suffering under FidelCastro’s regime, Cubans can now realisti-cally prepare for life after El Comandante. As

of this writing, the 80-year-old Castro is very ill, if notcompletely incapacitated. When he dies, will the com-munist regime he created back in 1959 survive? Orwill the country be transformed into a pluralist democ-racy, equipped with a market-based economic systemand the existence of private property, as was the casewith almost all of the communist Eastern Bloc dicta-torships after the fall of the Soviet Union?

I predict the latter. In the Americas, at the turn ofthe 21st century, a dictatorship where human rightsare not respected, which has more than 300 politicalprisoners—including 48 young people for collecting

signatures for a referendum, 23 journalists for writingarticles about the regime, and 18 librarians forloaning forbidden books—cannot be sustained.Fidel Castro’s death will be the starting point for aseries of political and economic changes similar tothose that occurred in Europe. Here’s why.

First, Castro’s leadership is nontransferable. Heis a strongman who has personally exercised powerfor almost half a century. Although his ideology iscommunism, he is from the same anthropologicalstock as Spain’s Francisco Franco or the DominicanRepublic’s Rafael Trujillo: the authoritarian militaryman. This type of authority, based as it is on a com-bination of fear and respect, cannot be handed down.It’s true that Castro’s brother, Raúl, has been hand-picked as the successor. But, at 75, his age is also aliability—as is his alcoholism and lack of charisma.In short, he fails to inspire the kind of loyalty thathis brother has. In all likelihood, Raúl will simply

Carlos Alberto Montaner is a syndicated columnist whose arti-

cles appear in Europe, Latin America, and the United States.

Ignacio Ramonet is editor of Le Monde Diplomatique in Paris.

Communism Has Failed CubaBy Carlos Alberto Montaner

forA Debate BetweenCarlos Alberto Montaner & Ignacio Ramonet

FidelCuba?

Was Good

ALL

PH

OTO

S B

Y TO

MAS

DEL

ALT

AR

IPA

[ C O V E R S T O R Y ]

58 Foreign Policy

[ Was Fidel Good for Cuba? ]

play a transitional role between the communistdictatorship and the arrival of democracy.

Second, the Cuban people know that the systemCastro created has failed. Every day, they mustreckon with the realization that communism hasaggravated all of Cuba’s basic material problems tothe point of desperation. Food, housing, drinkingwater, transportation, electricity, communications,and clothing are wants that cannot be compensat-ed for by an extensive but very poor educationaland health system. Paradoxically, even the revolu-tion’s achievements incriminate the regime. Thefact that Cuba has a reasonably educated popula-tion fosters the society’s desire for change and itsdissatisfaction with a system bent on having theimmense majority of Cubans live miserably. Noone is more anxious to abandon egalitarian col-lectivism than the legion of engineers, doctors,technicians, and teachers forced to live withoutthe slightest hope of betterment. These educatedand frustrated Cubans will attempt to press forreform within the communist institutions, oreven outside of them.

Third, Cuba must eventually face up to history.The country cannot continue as an anachronistic,

T hose who argue that after Fidel, Cuba willfollow in the footsteps of Eastern Europestubbornly refuse to see what is already

before their eyes. President Fidel Castro has notbeen on the job since late last July—that is, it’salready been more than five months “after Fidel.”And yet, nothing has happened. The regime has notcollapsed, nor have the much-anticipated publicprotests erupted. The system is showing that it canoperate normally under these conditions, and thelegal institutions are withstanding the shock ofFidel’s withdrawal.

Although the current situation has come aboutbecause of a gradual decline in Castro’s health, it hasserved as a dress rehearsal for the day when Fidelis no longer alive. And, for the time being, therehearsal is proving successful, confirming thatcommentators like you, who compare Cuba toHungary, are simply wrong.

Unlike in Hungary, major Cuban reforms havenot been the result of foreign ideas driven by foreign

troops arriving on Soviet-armored vehicles. Rather,they have proceeded from a popular movement inwhich the hopes of peasants, workers, and evenprofessionals from the small urban bourgeoisie haveconverged. This movement also capitalized on thedesire for genuine national independence (frustrat-ed by the 1898 U.S. intervention) and the longing toput an end to humiliating racial discrimination. Andit continues to have the support of the majority ofits citizens. Castro’s death will not dismantle a move-ment hundreds of years in the making. To disavowthis national character is to ignore some of theregime’s essential dimensions. And it is to fail tounderstand why, 15 years after the disappearance ofthe Soviet Union, Cuba’s regime is still in place.

Cuba in the years after Castro will, of course, beinfluenced by outside events. The colossus to thenorth will see to that. Witness the Bush administra-tion’s suggestion of naming someone to lead the“transition in Cuba,” as though the country weresome colonial protectorate. It’s a shocking suggestion,

Cuba’s Future Is NowBy Ignacio Ramonet

collectivist, communist dictatorship in a worldwhere Marxism has been competely discredited.Cuba belongs to Western civilization. It is partof Latin America, and it makes no sense for itsgovernment to keep the country isolated from itssurroundings, its roots, and its natural evolutionany longer. After all, the dictatorships of LatinAmerica, both on the left (like Velasco Alvaradoin Peru) and on the right (Augusto Pinochet andthe military regimes in Argentina, Brazil, andUruguay), were all replaced by governments legit-imized at the ballot box.

Lastly, the reformists know that change is notonly possible, it is desirable. Cuban leaders, espe-cially those younger than Fidel and his brotherRaúl’s generation, realize that they are not heroesin a tale of romantic exploits, but the promotersof an absurd system from which everyone escapeswho can. And, at the same time, they know, fromhaving watched it in Eastern Europe, there is lifeafter communism. They have all the moral andmaterial incentives to contribute to change. I pre-dict a peaceful change based on agreementbetween the regime’s reformists and oppositiondemocrats both on and off the island.

January | February 2007 59

even to some members of the opposition. Clearly,the United States is bent on maintaining a misguidedrelationship with Cuba. It continues to bolster anembargo that, besides making Cubans suffer, hasonly further legitimated to the rest of the world theregime it aims to defeat. Washington’s position is soirrational that even the Bush administration admitsthat the embargo will not cease until neither Fidel norhis brother Raúl is at the helm. Which means that theU.S. embargo has less to do with any particular polit-ical regime than it does the personalities of two indi-viduals. It gives one an idea of the level of neurosis thatdictates U.S. policy toward Cuba.

Although the United States is unlikely to reverseits stubborn Cuba policy anytime soon, other LatinAmerican countries have proven more than willingto recognize the advances and advantages of theCuban system. The generalized failure in LatinAmerica of the neoliberal models preached in the1990s has rejuvenated Cuba’s image as a socialmodel. No one can deny the country’s successes ineducation, health, sports, or medicine. They areagain making Cuba a benchmark for the disenfran-chised of Latin America. Washington’s strategy toisolate Cuba in the hemisphere has failed. Indeed,Cuba has never been as embraced by its neighborsas it is today. Néstor Kirchner in Argentina, Luiz

Inácio “Lula” da Silva in Brazil, Evo Morales inBolivia, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and DanielOrtega in Nicaragua have all publicly expressedrespect for Fidel Castro and solidarity with Cuba.And the majority of them are adopting “Cubansolutions” for some of their social problems. Thislegacy will undoubtedly outlive Fidel Castro.

You also fail to emphasize the reforms thatCastro’s regime has embarked on, including the open-ing up to foreign investment, partial deregulation offoreign trade, the decriminalization of the possessionof foreign currency, the revitalization of tourism, andso on. More important, the regime has diversified thecountry’s trade relations, signing agreements withArgentina, Brazil, China, Venezuela, and Vietnam.The result? During the past 10 years, Cuba’s averageannual growth in gross domestic product was rough-ly 5 percent, among the highest in Latin America. In2005, for example, the country saw growth ratesof 11.8 percent (including the value of its socialservices), and a similar rate is expected for 2006.

For the first time in its history, this country doesnot depend on a preferred partner, as it depended,successively, on Spain, the United States, and theSoviet Union. It is more independent than ever. Withthat rare and hard-earned distinction, Cubans areunlikely to reverse course.

[ Was Fidel Good for Cuba? ]

A nyone familiar with Cuban history knowsthat Fidel led the revolution against Presi-dent Fulgencio Batista to restore freedoms

to Cuba and to reinstate the Constitution of 1940,not to create a communist dictatorship copied fromthe Soviet model. The reason communism has nottumbled in Cuba, just as it has not in North Korea,is because of the country’s complete repression. It’sa brand of repression linked entirely to one dyingman. When he goes, so too will much of the fear thathis regime instills in its people.

In spite of political differences, all human beingshave the same hopes: They prefer freedom to oppres-sion, human rights to tyranny, peace to war, and theywant their living conditions to improve for themselvesand their families. This statement is as true in Hungaryas it is in Cuba. Cubans want the same changes thatrepressed peoples have always fought for. And whenFidel Castro’s passing provides them a chance to makethose changes, they will seize it.

Just look at the facts. At cubaarchive.org, Cubaneconomist Armando Lago and his assistant, MariaWerlau, have compiled a balance sheet that explainswhy Castro’s regime forced 2 million Cubans (and theirdescendants) into exile. Under Castro, there have been

Cubans Are Poor and Enslaved Carlos Alberto Montaner responds

roughly 5,700 executions, 1,200 extrajudicial murders,77,800 dead or lost raftsmen, and 11,700 Cubandead in international missions, most of them during 15years of African wars in Ethiopia and Angola. Castro’slegacy will be one of bloodshed and injustice, not oneof Latin “solidarity” and reform.

You blame the United States and its embargo forthe Cuban people’s material problems. But your analy-sis ignores the devastating impact that collectivism andthe lack of economic and political freedoms—notthe United States—had upon Soviet Bloc countries,ultimately leading to their demise. And statistics onCuba’s economic growth are highly suspect. The offi-cial Cuban numbers for Castro’s economic and socialachievements are so poorly regarded that the Eco-nomic Commission for Latin America and theCaribbean opted not to take them into account whenit compiled its own statistics on the true measures ofCuban society. And the idea that Cuba is now moreindependent than ever is laughable, considering thatmuch of the economic growth that you cite is buoyedby $2 billion a year in Venezuelan subsidies.

When Castro’s revolution started, he asserted thatall of the country’s economic ills originated fromWashington’s exploitation of the island. Since then,

like adults. Your statistics, which blur the number offighters killed in an old war (1956–59) with thenumber of people anxious to emigrate, the majorityfor economic reasons, show nothing. Exaggerationturns to insignificance.

No serious organization has ever accusedCuba—where, in fact, a moratorium on the deathpenalty has been in place since 2001—of carryingout “disappearances,” engaging in extrajudicialexecutions, or even performing physical torture ondetainees. The same cannot be said of the UnitedStates in its five-year-old “war on terror.” Of thesethree types of crimes, not a single case exists inCuba. On the contrary, to a certain extent the Cubanregime stands for life. It has succeeded in increasinglife expectancy and lowering infant mortality. AsNew York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof assert-ed in a Jan. 12, 2005, article, “If the U.S. had aninfant mortality rate as good as Cuba’s, [it] wouldsave an additional 2,212 American babies a year.”

These successes constitute a great legacy ofFidel Castro’s, one that few Cubans, even those inthe opposition, would want to lose and one thatthe many Latin Americans who have been swayedrecently by populist leaders covet. Cubans enjoyfull employment, and each citizen is entitled tothree meals a day, an achievement that continuesto elude Brazil’s Lula.

But Castro will not only be remembered as adefender of the weakest and poorest citizens. Histo-rians 100 years from now will credit Castro withbuilding a cohesive nation with a strong identity,even after a century and a half of the white, elitisttemptation to side with the United States out of fearof the numerous and oppressed black population.They will remember him correctly, as a preeminentpioneer in the history of his country.

January | February 2007 61

Even if Fidel Castro were as repressive as youbelieve, history provides no shortage of exam-ples of discontented people rising up against

repression. From the former East Germany to Poland,Hungary, and Czechoslovakia, on up to China, just tocite cases of rebellions against authoritarian commu-nism, people have managed to fight oppression. InFidel Castro’s Cuba, however, there have been nomajor uprisings. When Castro eventually succumbs tohis illnesses, there is nothing to suggest that Cubans willsuddenly rise up against socialism.

You must stop looking at Cuba through anideological prism and twisting the facts to fit in witha preconceived scheme of things. It is time to reason

he has claimed that they are due to the fact thatWashington does not exploit it. Which is it? It is alsoa curious paradox of the Castro regime that itfiercely opposes the U.S.-backed Free Trade Areaof the Americas, while it demands that the embargobe lifted so it can trade freely with the UnitedStates. These contradictions notwithstanding, thetruth is that the United States is a remarkable tradepartner of Cuba’s. Every year, the United States sells

to Cuba roughly $350 million in agricultural prod-ucts, it permits money transfers estimated at $1 bil-lion a year (or half the island’s exports), and, what’smore, it grants resident visas to 20,000 Cubans eachyear, relieving the government of serious social pres-sures. And the United States is already preparing for theend of the sanctions once Cuba proves to be head-ed down the road to democracy. That is not thebehavior of an implacable enemy.

Castro’s Enviable RecordIgnacio Ramonet responds

[ Was Fidel Good for Cuba? ]

How can you speak of “no major upris-ings”? You know as well as I that, infact, there was popular resistance to the

establishment of the communist dictatorship. Inthe 1960s, thousands of peasants rose up in armsin the mountains of Escambray and were quashedby Castro’s regime. The number of political pris-oners in the first two decades of his regime wasestimated at 90,000, and even the governmentadmits to 20,000.

In addition to this quantification of the “humancost of the revolution,” anyone who wants to knowthe cruelty of the communist repression in Cuba canread the 137 Amnesty International reports and pressreleases on the subject, or the abuses documented innumerous Human Rights Watch accounts. The mostpublicized crime of the Castro era has so far been thedeliberate sinking of the boat “13 de Marzo” orderedon July 13, 1994, with 72 refugees on board. Of the41 who drowned, 10 were children.

The End of a Sad ChapterCarlos Alberto Montaner responds

January | February 2007 63

forever prohibiting “acts of repudiation” orpogroms against people who are different. We mustpermanently eradicate the “apartheid” that preventsCubans from enjoying the hotels, restaurants, andbeaches that only foreigners are allowed to frequent.We must live in peace, giving up the internationaladventurism that cost so much blood in Africa, aswell as in half of the planet’s guerrilla groups, whichCastro inspired. With his passing, we must strive tobe, in short, a normal, peaceful, and modernnation, not a delirious revolutionary project aimedat changing the history of the world.

that gives the most medical assistance to dozens ofpoor states throughout the world? In more than 30countries, there are some 30,000 Cuban doctorsworking for free. Proportionately speaking, itwould be as if the United States sent 900,000 doc-tors to the Third World. The “Miracle Mission”alone, which provides free cataract operations forpoor Venezuelans, Bolivians, and Central Ameri-cans, has given more than 150,000 people backtheir eyesight. Is seeing one’s children and thelandscapes of one’s homeland not a fundamentalhuman right? Cuba does not accept its denial tomillions of poor people.

It is a shame that while you look back withheated reproaches, you do not see the truth of whatis happening in Cuba today and do not know howto decode the permanence of its socialist regime.

There are always intellectuals ready to justi-fy crimes. It was the case with Stalin andFranco, and now it will be the case with Cas-

tro. It is morally incomprehensible: They love theexecutioners and hate the victims. How can the Cubangovernment simultaneously respect solidarity withits Latin neighbors and yet fail to uphold humanrights in its own backyard? Where is the mutualincompatibility between solidarity and democracy?Judging a half century of incompetent and atrociousdictatorship by the cataract operations it performs is

A s long as we are talking about gross humanrights violations, why don’t we begin withthe United States’ continued protection in

Miami of two avowed terrorists, Cuban exilesLuis Posada Carriles and Orlando Bosch, who areaccused of blowing up a Cuban civil aircraft onOct. 6, 1976, killing 73 people? This act has yetto be denounced by those in Miami who contin-ue to nurse old resentments against Cuba. Theyhave not protested against the 3,000 Cuban vic-tims killed by terrorist actions financed by anddirected from the United States. Could this be adouble standard, a repudiation of “bad” (alQaeda) terrorism and an acceptance of “good”(anti-Cuban) terrorism?

And if human rights are a concern for you, howcan you deny that Cuba, a small country, is the one

Cuba LibreCarlos Alberto Montaner responds

the fascist argument characteristically wielded byFranco’s apologists: His dictatorship was good becauseSpaniards managed to eat three times a day. It was alsothe argument of South Africa’s racists: Apartheid wasgood because the country’s blacks were not as poor astheir neighbors. Castro’s dictatorship was good, we nowlearn, because it leased doctors to the Third World.

No, all dictatorships—like all forms of terror-ism—are reprehensible. Don’t forget that Castrocame to power using guerrilla and terrorist tactics(Havanans remember perfectly the “Night of 100

Seeing the TruthIgnacio Ramonet responds

Castro will not be remembered as a luminary oran upholder of human rights. The Cuban peoplewill look back on the Castro era with sadness. Heleaves as an inheritance a detailed catalogue of hownot to govern. We should have different politicalparties and not just one dogmatic, inflexible,impoverishing, and misguided one. We shouldrespect human rights. We should trust in the dem-ocratic method, in the rule of law, in the market, andin private property, just as do the most prosperousand happy nations on Earth. We must tolerateand respect religious minorities and homosexuals,

64 Foreign Policy

[ Was Fidel Good for Cuba? ]

Both participants of this debate have written extensively on Fidel Castro and his life, legacy, andimpact on Latin America. Ignacio Ramonet’s Fidel Castro: Biografía a dos voces (Madrid: Debate,2006) is the product of more than 100 hours of interviews with Castro. Carlos Alberto Montaner’sJourney to the Heart of Cuba: Life as Fidel Castro (New York: Algora, 2001) offers a criticalassessment of the psychological profile and political legacy of the Cuban leader.

For insight into Castro’s psyche—and reading habits—see the rare book review he penned discussingthe work of his friend Gabriel García Márquez in “Chronicle of a Friendship Foretold” (ForeignPolicy, March/April 2003). In After Fidel: The Inside Story of Castro’s Regime and Cuba’s Next Leader(New York: Palgrave Macmillan, 2005), former cia officer Brian Latell details how the relationshipbetween Fidel and Raúl continues to shape the myths and reality of Cuban history. Jorge Domínguezlooks forward to a future without Fidel in “Cuba: His Brother’s Keeper,” part of Foreign Policy’spackage on post-dictatorship societies, “The Day After” (Foreign Policy, November/December 2003).

The short film Bye Bye Havana (Journeyman Pictures, 2005), by J. Michael Seyfer, paints acolorful and sobering picture of the Cuba that Fidel will leave behind. Reporter AnthonyDePalma narrates “Focus on Cuba: Fidel Castro Cedes Power” (NYTimes.com, Aug. 2, 2006),a photo essay that captures the emotional drama surrounding Castro’s exit from the political stage.

»For links to relevant Web sites, access to the FP Archive, and a comprehensive index of related Foreign Policy articles, go to www.ForeignPolicy.com.

[ Want to Know More? ]

P rominent intellectuals have always beenon the side of those plagued by the arro-gance of the powerful opponents of Fidel

Castro’s Cuba are no exception. Setting oneself upagainst Cuba and in favor of the United States,whose administration is accused of very seriousabuses (torturing prisoners, kidnapping civilianslocked up without trial in secret jails, murderingsuspects, and creating a prison in GuantánamoBay, Cuba, completely outside the law) asdenounced by the world’s respectable consciences,is not the behavior of a halfway-informed citizen.

It is not even a question of an intellectual stance.Being an intellectual must be earned. And the first stepis to become informed and not to mention SouthAfrican apartheid while ignoring that it collapsed onlywhen its elite troops were defeated in December 1986at Cuito Cuanavale, “apartheid’s Stalingrad,” not byU.S. forces, but by Cuban troops. That is what prompt-ed Nelson Mandela, an icon for our time, to say thatFidel Castro’s revolution “has been a source of inspi-ration to all freedom-loving people.” He, like so manyof the Cubans who will mourn their leader’s passing,was wont to cry, “Viva comrade Fidel Castro!”

Viva Fidel!Ignacio Ramonet responds

freedom and democracy? But, despite this sadcomplicity, the day will come for releasing the polit-ical prisoners, for holding pluralist elections, andfor beginning the material and moral reconstructionof an artificially impoverished society cruelly ter-rorized by repression and devastated by Stalinisttotalitarianism. After Castro, Cuba will be free.

Bombs” in 1958), but more serious is the fact that theisland has been used as a staging area for narcotraf-fickers, including the Colombian group farc. Dothese intellectuals want a regime like Cuba’s forFrance? I suppose not. And if they do not want it forFrance or for themselves, why do they want it forus Cubans? Do we Cubans not have the right to