Cuba: What Globalists Want You to Know

Wed, 20 Jan 2010 18:40:23 -0500

A recent Foreign Policy Association book forum on Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know offered its well-heeled and academic attendees an opportunity to hear author Julie E. Sweig’s impressions on U.S. policy toward the captive island nation.

The cold Manhattan weather had many seeking a refuge for the warmth of an evenhanded discussion on the issue, as was given during a September 2nd New America Foundation book forum on Bacardi and the Long Fight for Cuba: The Biography of a Cause.

However, her parochial views had FreeMarketeros.com pining for an unprejudiced treatment of the subject as much as for the heated political and actual climate of exile-dominated South Florida.

Sweig described herself as a historian, policy wonk and follower of Latin America and Cold War studies. Her many trips to Cuba over the years have given her an enviable perception of Cuban life that those not having visited can only imagine.

Rather than summarize her book, Sweig said, she wanted to discuss recent history (2006-09), views on Cuba and spotlight the future of U.S.-Cuba relations. For a standard book review, visit the L.A. Times.

As for Sweig’s thoughts on the Cuba question, first know that they were consistent with her early 2009 open memo to newly elected President Barack Obama published in Cigar Aficianado magazine. Sweig fits squarely inside the policymaking community that seeks to unilaterally lift many of the trade and travel restrictions the U.S. government places on Cuba. Her writing and presentation argue that restrictions have failed to meet U.S. objectives and the humanitarian aims many hope to bring about for the Cuban people.

Nationalistic Cuba has a history of independence from the U.S. that was fueled by the communist nation’s concern over perceived fears that the latter sought regime change. This threat to sovereignty shaped Cuba policy over the decades, and despite reformist signals from Raul Castro following his ascendance to power in the wake of Fidel’s illness, these worries persist because Cuba’s challenges increased, its worldview endured and struct U.S. policy soldiered on, for the most part.

Raul came to power with heightened expectations of relaxing internal repression, but issues such as hurricane rebuilding and the global financial crisis affecting Cuba have take precedence over any reforms Raul hoped to institute. Instead, today we see a Cuba that persists in maintaining total control over the economy and society for its own reasons, but also because Cuba is responding to Bush-era remnants of regime change policies. According to Sweig, the policy of regime change persists even though the rhetoric left with Bush. This is due to the impact of USAID projects that seek regime change through civil society empowerment. An example of such projects is the unfiltered Internet access initiative of an American contractor detained in December 2009, reports the Miami Herald.

A more severe example of U.S. interference in the internal workings of Cuba was President Bush’s establishment of an official office to oversee Cuba’s transition to democracy, and taken together these policies and the message they sent merely fed into the Castro regime’s paranoia of an external threat. Thus, the hopes for true change in Cuba that could occur at its natural pace with better U.S.-Cuba relations are being hindered by the specter of a U.S. still intent on regime change.

Sweig recommends that all civil society projects with a regime change focus be purged from appropriations, and that the U.S. lift travel restrictions, lift limitations on remittances and remove Cuba from the U.S.’s globally despised terrorist watch list. Because a broad consensus in favor of unilaterally lifting restrictions of these kinds on Cuba does not yet exist, Washington still talks of normalizing U.S.-Cuba relations only if Cuba makes certain “gestures” such as releasing political dissidents. Those contingencies, she argues, are tantamount to asking Cuba to “commit domestic political suicide” and are a recipe for policy impasse. The U.S. has a role in changing Cuba from within, Sweig concludes, but “not as the decider.”

So what leeway do liberty-minded friends of Cuba have, given her conclusions? Not very much room at all. Sweig hopes that certain gestures from the U.S. will bring about a kinder, gentler Cuba: if travel restriction are lifted, she says, then Cubans will “breath the air” from the influx of Americans who visit, resulting in the gradual enlightenment of Cubans vis a vis democratic values imparted from American tourists. Unfortunately, there was no mention of why visits from tourists from democratic nations that do have strong Cuba ties have failed to transmit freedom. (FreeMarketeros.com sought to ask that question of Sweig, but this was impeded by an event rule dictating that an equal number of questions be asked by men and women, and the opportunity was lost.)

As much as Sweig wants to characterize Republican policies toward Cuba as narrow-minded and ideological, she is guilty of almost identical small-mindedness when it comes to answering the Cuba question. The U.S. requiring gestures of Cuba is impermissible, but the U.S. making unilateral gestures is essential. The U.S. hoping for gradual change in Cuba is vital, but working toward them is verboten. Heeding younger Cuban Americans’ calls for re-thinking the isolating strategy is noble, yet responding to older Miamians’ animosity toward gentler U.S. policy is somehow antiquated, unenlightened and counterproductive.

With the purist Sweig, there is no mention of justice for the Cuban exile community and little mention of actively promoting human rights in Cuba. That, disappointingly, aligns her with high-minded Washingtonians that trade sovereignty for freedom at every turn, meaning she is as an appropriate a spokesperson for President Obama multilateralism as she is a glowing booster of candidate Obama’s cloudy vision of Hope and Change.

No Goals in Cuban Life

Sat, 19 Dec 2009 12:07:14 -0500

The highways leaving the vicinity of Jose Marti airport in Havana are lined with messages of propaganda. Billboard after billboard tout the socialist agenda with phrases such as “Tenemos y Tendremos Socialismo,” “Che: Su Ejemplo Vive,” and “Victoria de Las Ideas.”

In 1959, Fidel Castro and Che Guevera set out to create a so-called “equal standard of living” for all Cubans. In some respect the two revolutionaries have achieved that: every Cuban is equally oppressed and impeded from pursuing their goals and achieving their dreams. If that is the “equality” the revolutionaries sought to bring about, they have certainly attained it.

During my visit to the island nation, I was disheartened but not surprised by the government-imposed segregation. Only if you are a tourist, diplomat, or one of the Castros’ cronies are you treated with any dignity and approbation. Cubans are usually denied entrance into touristic hotels, resorts, and restaurants in an effort to prevent interactions with tourists that would shed light on the real Cuban life. The regime much rather have visitors believe Cuba is a wondrous nation with superb healthcare and social equality for all as depicted in the so-called journalistic documentaries of leftist filmmakers Oliver Stone and Michael Moore. This is especially ironic considering most Cubans don’t even have access to aspirin or toilet paper.

The most harmful economic disparity for the Cuban people is the existence of two currencies in use on the island nation. There is the Cuban Peso, the currency the government pays its citizens, and the Convertible Peso, the currency in which most goods are denominated and sold. The average Cuban worker earns 250 pesos a month, the equivalent of USD $10. However, most stores, whether touristic or not, sell goods in the much stronger Convertible Peso (C.U.C.). Even more astounding is that the C.U.C. is worth more than the U.S. dollar.

At the time of my visit, the exchange rate was USD $1 for .80 C.U.C. In other words, if someone earns the equivalent of only 10 C.U.C. a month, they would have to spend nearly half of their monthly income to purchase a bottle of shampoo. In a grocery store on a Havana block outside of the tourist district, a can of string beans costs 2 C.U.C., a six pack of toilet paper is 2 C.U.C., and a small package of olives was 3 C.U.C. Imagine working an entire month for a salary with the meager purchasing power to buy one can of string beans, a package of toilet paper and two small packages of olives.

To survive, virtually every Cuban operates a business outside of the official economy. Whether it’s selling pirated DVDs they burn, used cell phones, or bootleg clothing, Cubans find ways to make ends meet, but only barely. The Cuban government often touts its high literacy rate and education system. However, a great education – if it in fact exists – is useless if there are no jobs and no pay. Driving down most main streets, you see young women who are doctors, lawyers, and engineers hitchhiking and offering sex in exchange for car rides, food or money.

Consider also that the talents of professionals, skilled workers and other educated Cubans are made less useful by the lack of information flowing to the island, and therefore workers encounter no changing situations to which education and skills are applied. Information outside of revolutionary propaganda is hard to come by, as are methods of information gathering we take for granted. Not only do most Cubans not have any form of Internet access, they are astounded by the technologies and connectivity that is commonplace outside of the regime: home high-speed Internet, Internet on mobile devices, and Americans’ prevalent cell smart phone ownership.

There is no sense of hope or purpose in Cuba and no feelings of accomplishment, as there are no goals in Cuban life. Imagine living in an island paradise where you could never eat in a nice restaurant, or stay at a hotel while visiting a neighboring town, or even visit a museum with your children. What kind of life would that be?

To those living in Cuba, the basic freedoms that many Americans take for granted are merely an illusion. As Americans, we should always be grateful for the privileges afforded us and appreciate those who have fought and died to protect them, because on an island 90 miles away, 12 million people are, without question, denied those same luxuries and liberties.

[Nicole Malliotakis is a government relations professional living in New York. Prior to her career in the private sector, she was a public liaison and advisor to former Governor George Pataki. She traveled to Cuba for 10 days in November 2009.]

Argentina’s Dirty War Orphans

Thu, 3 Dec 2009 09:01:43 -0500

FreeMarketeros.com might be a Johnny-come-lately (or is it Juanny-come-lately?) concerning a remarkable film about the victims of Argentina’s Dirty War. Nevertheless, we’re introducing LatAm boosters to a path-breaking film by a talented documentarian and fellow New York University journalism alumnus Peter Sanders.

His 2007 film, “The Disappeared,” is a provocative account of Argentina’s state terrorism against subversives who, from 1976 to 1983, opposed the ruling military dictatorship—and who paid a heavy price for their resistance. The Argentine insurgents, mainly youth, ranged from intellectuals seeking social justice to guerilla fighters who clashed with the military in order to overthrow the regime. By Sanders’ own admission his film incensed those on the far left and far right of Argentina’s political spectrum. It earned him scorn because it paints a complex portrait of those seeking justice for the disappeared and the aging military officers who still deny involvement in the torture and murder of an estimated 30,000 political dissidents. To the credit of all involved in the project, “The Disappeared” not only caused leftist to walk out of theaters early and rightists to throw rotten fruit at the screen. The film won critical acclaim and was shown in several highly regarded festivals throughout the Americas.

“The Disappeared” portrays the journey of Horacio Pietragalla – who was stolen from his parents prior to their murder by the Argentine military – as he proves his gut belief that he is a child of the missing. Horacio learns that he was reared by the household servants of a high-ranking military officer in what appears to be a merciful gesture to spare him the same fate as his biological parents. Activists representing the desaparecidos, however, consider Horacio’s surrogate parents no less than child thieves and complicit in the infant abductions that make the dirty war more unforgivable. As Horacio is reunited with his biological extended family, the audience is left to ponder his mixed emotions and those of his surrogate parents, who served months in prison and are now estranged from their “son.” In addition, and most tragic, viewers learn that Horacio would have discovered his identity decades earlier if those knowing the truth (including next-door neighbors) didn’t look the other way.

Demonstrating the gravity of Horacio’s predicament and 400 similar abduction stories, the Argentine government now obliges Dirty War orphans to surrender DNA samples, the Associated Press reports.

Available on DVD and at select screenings, “The Disappeared” should not be overlooked. Its creator Peter Sanders lectures often, solicits feedback and deserves our support.

Bolivia’s Planning Stifles Development

Thu, 27 Aug 2009 13:15:18 -0400

During a recent visit to Bolivia I encountered two scenes of everyday life that made a lasting impression on me even as I returned to my studies in the United States. This is unusual because I’ve witnessed them so many times before, having lived in Bolivia for a decade.

The first scene was of a homeless child, no older than 8 years old (presumably guided by his parent, who wasn’t present at the scene), holding a baby that appeared to be about 4 months of age. Using children is a common strategy beggars employ to motivate pedestrians to give more generous handouts, as passersby see the regrettable situation in which some people, women and children in particular, are doomed to live on the streets and resort to charity. Behind the scenes, however, what happens is that many of these babies on display are rented by prospective beggars in one location, and are taken to the main urban areas in order to be used for panhandling purposes. In many cases the babies are completely unrelated to the women holding them. As I mentioned, they are objects merely rented for the purpose of seeking handouts.

The panhandler-baby market is common knowledge among Bolivians, although you’ll have to take my word for it as there is no citation available. Its existence is relevant because it underscores how efforts to destroy entrepreneurialism ultimately fail, but these planned economies often succeed in creating circus-like market activity.

Although more than a little twisted, the panhandler-baby market shows, among with many other ventures in Bolivia, that the Bolivian people have retained a sense of entrepreneurialism despite the government’s efforts to monopolize commerce and large industry. People find creative ways – although in this example, not always praiseworthy – to subsist, prosper and fight their way out of poverty. And, they do it all out of self-interest. Bolivians as well as people in other poor countries do not lack the entrepreneurial spirit and motivation to get out of poverty, as many people in developed countries seem to believe. Rather, they are under the thumb of policies that stifle more “acceptable” means of economic activity, and encourage strange behavior that industrial nations view as depraved.

The second familiar scene I witnessed was the flawless functioning of a Bolivian outdoor food market. Farmers and meat producers from the city, countryside and rural areas bring their produce daily to this kind of market, which is common across the beautiful and hopeful Andean nation (my own experience was both in La Paz and Santa Cruz). Simply put: farmers sell and consumers buy. Taxes are absent in the prices and tax enforcement is difficult, as these markets often engage in tax evasion simply by nature of their informality. In a scene out of the industrialized world of long ago, sellers and buyers haggle back and forth to get the best deal for both parties involved in the transaction until they reach a mutually agreed upon price. But in Bolivia, this kind of market organization is not only visible in agricultural products but also in other goods areas like clothing and electronics, organized in similar settings. The main features of these markets are that they are informal in nature and are not impacted by tax mechanisms. Bolivian markets resemble what economists regard as an excellent experiment in a truly free market. This is crucial because in a country like Bolivia – rated one of the poorest in the world – markets actually work, and better than in many other places.

So how come Bolivia, which is among the poorest nations worldwide, has not found its way out of poverty? After all, entrepreneurship is practiced in even the most bizarre settings, and people fully understand and use markets purely out of self-interest.

Maybe it’s because it’s intentionally difficult for private firms of any notable size to prosper, as demonstrated by Bolivia’s current rank in the World Bank’s Ease of Doing Business Index: a shameful 150 out of 181 nations.

Maybe because of a lack of economic freedom as demonstrated by Bolivia’s rank in 2009 in the Heritage Foundation’s Index of Economic Freedom: an embarrassing 130 out of 179 countries.

Maybe it’s a problem with corruption. In 2008, Bolivia was ranked a whopping 102 out of 180 by Transparency International in its Corruption Perceptions Index.

Maybe it’s because there are too many utopian, top-down “planners” that never allow realistic, bottom-up “searchers” to prosper and find creative ways to fight poverty, to use William Easterly’s terminology.

Or, Bolivia’s problem might also be a public choice one. The current government led by socialist president Evo Morales promotes its own goals and self-interest, and does not want to advance economic reforms. The government refuses to let entrepreneurs and citizens of all income levels enjoy what markets free of government intervention and central planning have to offer. This is alongside the government’s promotion of the idea that wealth accumulation for one’s self is against society’s best interests.

There is no one certain recipe for, or answer to, development. But, it’s no coincidence that Bolivia remains one of the poorest countries in the world – at the same time that none of the reforms toward a more decentralized and prosperous society are taking place due to increased planning and government intervention.

*Gonzalo Schwarz is a master’s student in economics at George Mason University residing in Fairfax, Virginia. Although he was born in Uruguay, he has lived in Bolivia for more than 10 years and completed his bachelor’s degree in economics in Bolivia.

Chavez and Correa: Dual Suspension (of Freedom)

Tue, 18 Aug 2009 12:01:53 -0400

Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez and Ecuadorian president Rafael Correa are abusing their executive powers and politicizing institutions in an all-out war against the press. This regional offensive by socialist, anti-American leaders with ties to the FARC is silencing dissent, and could allow future actions by these oppressive undemocratic governments to continue unchecked. However, with a decline in the influence of the radical left in the region, Ecuador may be heading for a fall. The world’s biggest banana exporter may be left holding the bag and the title of Banana Republic. News flash, Mr. Correa: there’s no such thing as “too small to fail.”

First, let’s recap the issue as it pertains to once-proud Venezuela. The Washington-based Cato Institute – the nation’s premier libertarian think tank – recently held a discussion showcasing the Chavez assault on press freedoms in Venezuela.

The event featured testimony and videos supporting Chavez’s vendetta against Globovision, a television station that event participants cited as Venezuela’s sole independent press outlet. In the past Chavez has fined the station millions of dollars, attempted to revoke its signal concession, riled up mobs to beat and harass journalists, and tried to starve the station of revenue by pulling all state-sponsored advertising and PSAs. Now, the country has passed a media oversight law that uses vague language about what type of speech is acceptable and empowers the government to shut down noncompliant press outlets.

Cato event organizers including host Ian Vasquez
noted that Globovision’s president Guillermo Zuloaga had originally been scheduled to present the station’s cause to Cato’s audience, but a Venezuelan court prohibited him from traveling to Washington. Instead, the capacity crowd at Cato witnessed the sometimes-emotional, always-chilling testimony of Globovision TV vice-president Carlos Alberto Zuloaga, Guillermo’s son. Also speaking, and making the case for a Venezuela in steep decline, were Rafael Alfonzo, president of CEDICE, a liberty-oriented Venezuelan think tank, and Robert Rivard of the Inter American Press Association.

Venezuela’s war against press freedom is fairly well understood. However, Ecuador’s mirror-image assault on journalism led by president Rafael Correa, is just beginning to be known. FreeMarketeros.com, Fausta’s Blog and others have already reported on the high-profile case of embattled columnist Romulo Lopez Sabando, who Correa threatened with arrest for reporting on Correa’s clandestine plans to de-dollarize Ecuador’s economy. The University of Texas at Austin Knight Center for Journalism in the Americas has also been reporting on Correa’s war against the media. Finally, Ian Vasquez highlights the Ecuador parallel to Venezuela in a Cato@Liberty blog entry and CNN.com offers context and a look at the weak international response to now-regional threat.

It’s alarming and ironic that tiny Ecuador is close on the heels of Venezuela in clamping down on free speech and integrating 21st Century Socialism. At just over 13 million people, flat-broke Ecuador is much smaller and produces far less oil than Venezuela. Fewer people in the U.S. will care about Ecuador’s decline and the suffering of her people. Prior to Correa’s election as president – a contest suspected to have been partly financed by the FARC – Ecuador was at least on the map as a banana exporter, home to the Galapagos islands, and a key ally of the U.S. Now, the Manta FOL – the eyes and ears of the hemispheric war on drugs – is closing and its capabilities are being moved to Colombia.

U.S. forces in Colombia, plus “dictator fatigue” and less oil revenue, make the leftist cheerleading of Correa on Chavez’s behalf less wise every day. The Cato Institute’s presentation revealed a confidence among Globovision and other Chavez detractors that his rule is nearing an end. With U.S. boots on the ground in Colombia, FARC aggression is unwise. And Manuel Zelaya’s ouster from Honduras shows that exporting revolution through constitutional rewrites may also be coming to a close. With Ecuador not getting that message, the little country is poised to be one of the last ones in the region to champion decades-old failed policies and anti-Americanism. That’s astoundingly poor insight and tragically bad management from Correa, who was educated in the U.S.