ShareThis Page
Featured Commentary

A bad year for freedom in Cuba

| Saturday, Dec. 26, 2015, 9:00 p.m.

Much has changed in Cuba since President Obama and the island's dictator, Raúl Castro, announced their rapprochement a year ago.

Hundreds of millions of dollars have flowed into Cuban government coffers because of more U.S. tourism and remittances. Havana has negotiated a generous U.S.-tolerated debt restructuring with Western creditors. You can't walk down the street in Havana, it seems, without bumping into a would-be American investor.

And, of course, the stars and stripes wave over a reopened U.S. Embassy in Havana.

But when it comes to the elementary freedoms that the Castro regime has denied its people since 1959, results are scant.

“This year has been a bad year for us,” democratic activist Antonio G. Rodiles told Washington Post editors this month. Rodiles cited a “huge increase in arbitrary arrests,” as well as his savage beating by regime thugs in July.

“Raúl Castro has been legitimized and recognized by the majority of the governments of the planet and played a leading part in a Summit of the Americas amid flashing cameras and meetings with Barack Obama,” independent blogger Yoani Sánchez wrote. “Inside the country, he has not wanted to give even the slightest recognition to his critics, against whom he has continued arrests, mob actions and painful character assassination.”

As for freer telecommunications, there are a few new open-air WiFi hotspots, but they are exorbitantly priced and officially monitored, Sánchez noted. Meanwhile, Washington trumpets a deal to restore snail-mail service between the United States and Cuba on a date to be announced.

This is what happens when a magical-thinking president runs up against a communist octogenarian who inherited Cuba from his brother, Fidel, and aspires to pass it to his son, who is the intelligence chief, and son-in-law, the tourism industry boss.

“Our central premise,” Obama explained to Yahoo News, “has always been for a small country 90 miles off the shores of Miami — that if they are suddenly exposed to the world and America and opened up to our information and our culture and our visitors and our businesses, invariably they are going to change.”

If Obama can figure that out, so can Castro. The dictator has every incentive to limit U.S.-Cuban interactions to those he can contain and control, which is what he has done so far. (By the way, Havana is 229 miles from Miami.) When Yahoo News asked Obama to list “concessions” Castro had made, the president couldn't name one.

Obama wants Congress to lift the rest of the embargo, in part to eliminate one of Castro's last propaganda excuses. Anticipating that, Castro has declared that, even if the embargo ends, “normalization” as he defines it would hinge on more U.S. concessions, including a handover of the naval base at Guatanamo Bay.

U.S. engagement probably won't “work” in Cuba any more than isolation did, and Cuba is not analogous to China, to which it's often compared.

There was no real alternative to trade and engagement with a geopolitical giant such as China, human rights notwithstanding. Tiny, impoverished But Cuba offers no strategic compensation for legitimizing its dictatorship through business as usual — not even the agreement to protect whitetip sharks and other marine life Washington and Havana so excitedly unveiled.

“Our original theory on this was not that we were going to see immediate changes or loosening of the control of the Castro regime, but rather that, over time, you'd lay the predicates for substantial transformation,” Obama told Yahoo News.

He has all the time in the world to try his theory — before leaving office a year from now.

Cubans are tired of waiting.

Charles Lane is a Washington Post columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me