http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070905/wl_nm/cuba_russia_women_dc They came from Russia with love to a tropical socialist utopia when the going was good. They were young women romantically drawn to Fidel Castro's revolution, a breath of fresh air on a distant Caribbean island for those who were disillusioned with Soviet communism. But when the Soviet Union fell apart in 1991, hundreds of Russian women who married Cubans and moved to Cuba were cut off from home and stranded in poverty as the Cuban economy plunged into deep crisis. For those who had lived through the hardships of World War II in Russia as children, the long blackouts and the lack of food, medicine and fuel for transport were a cruel flashback. "We were young and Cuba was beautiful when we got here," said film historian Zoia Barash, who arrived in 1963. Cuban leaders were so young compared to the Soviet gerontocracy and abstract art was not seen as incompatible with communism. Her hopes of finding "true socialism" were dashed, though, as Cuba copied the Soviet model, with sweltering heat added. "Today our situation is difficult, as it is for the whole country," said Barash, 72, who cannot make ends meet on her 260 peso ($10) monthly pension after 30 years working for the Cuban film industry. About 1,300 women from Russia and former Soviet republics Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan still live in Cuba, scraping a living as best they can. In an old mansion belonging to the Russian Embassy, two women run a store selling anything from vodka and pickled gherkins to imported toothpaste, Pringles and Viagra pills. The harshest aspect is not being able to travel home. Cuba used to grant them subsidized tickets every five years, paid for in pesos. But Cuba's airline stopped flying to Moscow and tickets must now be paid for in hard cash few can afford.
Ask Castro where he put the money he stole from the Cuban people. That is a problem there also. He is such a great leader but he can't exist without aid which only shows he isn't that great after all. If he dies his brother will take control and steal more money again.
Neither utopia nor catasprophe. A fair comparison would be with Haiti. Cuba has been boycotted and blockaded by the most powerful nation and most influential economy on the planet for something like fifty years now. Whatever it's problems, they cannot be blamed on Castro or Socialism or the like, without taking that into account.
And rightfully so. I'm curious how you would think the absence of a US boycott would change the nation? It's a big world out there, and there are a lot of countries with sizable economies that have been trading with the Cubans for years. That hasn't seemed to make much of a difference.
There's no blockade. It's an embargo. A blockade would be if we stationed ships around their coastline and prevented them from trading with anyone at all. An embargo is where we refuse to trade with them. We did blockade them for a short time during the missile crisis, but that was decades ago.
I may actually have to disagree with you there. Cuba is no threat to the USA, it has a similar totalitarian/communist authority as Vietnam and China, and yet we trade willingly with them. If it's the annoyance with dictators that bothers the US, we should keep in mind that we had/have no issue trading with Pinochet (Chile), Chavez (Venezuela) and Hussein (Iraq-- before Kuwait). The embargo against Cuba is all about ego and how the American ego and Cuban-American ego is bruised. The Cuban-American voting block is an important one to the Republicans-- and that ALONE is the reason why the pointless embargo is in place. The whole "we won't do business with despots" nonsense is to make it more palatable to the American people; the majority of whom, for all intents and purposes, couldn't even locate Cuba on a map, much less care one iota about its internal government. To be certain, there are a lot of other nations out there, but the USA is no other nation, if it doesn't directly buy your goods, a good deal of them pass through the USA, or are handled by American firms, or are financed by American investors. The embargo stops many NON-American firms from doing business in Cuba as well, simply because many corporations want to curry favor with the US government, and since Cuba is such small fry, there's just no point of them, or American citizens pushing the issue any further. Moreover, geographical neighbors will always be the biggest trading partners and in the case of the USA, this is only compounded by the sheer size of the American economy. By having this petty embargo against the Cuban economy, the USA is proving one thing: we get our way, because we're tougher. And although that may be factually true, it's not exactly in keeping with the American motto of: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Do such things only apply if a nation does what we want them to do? ~String
Actually, I tend to agree with you. Our relationship with Cuba probably should have thawed over the years, but as you touched on, the American Cuban population is vehemently against this idea, and they single-handily keep US policy tough on the little island (even as they illegally send cash back to it). Still, a few other items are worth noting: One being that Cuba is complicit in a deadly form of brinkmanship that almost plunged our nation into nuclear war, a serious and negative distinction China or Vietnam (or any of the other nations you mentioned) aren't eligible for. Secondly, I would argue that it's funny that our friends on the left chastise the US for doing business with "bad people" then chastise it in this case for not doing business with a "bad" person. So far as that goes, they seem as hypocritical as American foreign policy is. In closing, I don't think it's quite the partisan issue you do. Per my recollections, Democrats have never seriously tried to normalize relations, either. The whole of Europe and South America can trade with them. So far as I know, the whole of the rest of the world can. And while I'm not denying the power of the US economy or or its proximity (I know both levy a powerful toll on the island), I can't see how trade with Cuba would change all that much down there. Are you suggesting it would have a similar impact as our trade with China has? I'm not sure how our motto applies to other nations, or to our foreign policy, which is largely pragmatic, applied on a case-by-case basis and largely driven by our business interests, just as it should be.
And so, when comparing Cuba to comparable countries - such as Haiti - we should take into account the heavy toll America's enmity has taken on Cuba's economy, and the great benefits America's friendship has bestowed on Haiti. We should allow for these factors. For a fair comparison of Cuba's system of government with others, that is.
No one suggested disallowing them. I suggested I don't think it would have made much of a difference. A bad manager with friends is still a bad manager who produces a bad operation. And the Haiti example you mentioned is telling for this reason: When that country suffered for leadership it suffered regardless of US support.
I think there are a lot of indicators that need to be considered when trying to evaluate the quality of life in one nation compared to another. Compared to other "3rd world" countries Cuba has low infant mortality rate, a high life expectancy (actually slightly higher than the US), and high adult literacy. If you're evaluating it my per capita income it's pretty lower compared to other caribbean countries (although higher than Haiti) but that doesn't take into account the services provided by the gov't. According to the UN human development measures (I'd post a link to undp.org here but I just started posting & I don't seem to be able to post links yet) Cuba ranks reasonably high, above Mexico, Jamaica, Russia, Thailand, etc.
Cuba has never been a third world country. During the Cold War, when the term actually had meaning, Cuba was a second world country (i.e., aligned with the USSR). Nowadays, the term has pretty much lost its meaning, and the human development index is preferred. By that measure, Cuba shows "high human development," the same status as the United States, Western Europe, Australia, etc. So those are the places you should compare it to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_Human_Development_Index One thing that differentiates Cuba from every other country with high human development is that people regularly risk their lives in order to escape from Cuba, and then put their energies into resisting the regime from the outside. Other highly developed countries don't really care if you want to move away; on the contrary, they often have trouble accomodating all the people that want to immigrate. Cuba is the only one that is run like a prison, with a government that lives in fear of its own people (both in Cuba and abroad). This fact says more about Cuba's system than any comparisons of material achievements I can think of.
I'm aware that Cuba was a 2nd world nation (hence the quotes around 3rd world) but the fact that it has achieved a level of success in human development that places it in the top 50 given its history a lack of wealth (relative to the United States, Western Europe, Australia, etc.) seems to suggest that in some ways it is a success. I by no means would call it a unqualified success but considering where it was before the revolution and where it is today relative to its neighbors, I think materially it's done well. As for questions of personal freedom, while also a valid measure of quality of life, that doesn't seem to be the concern of the original article.
Well, obviously. That's why it's appropriate to compare Cuba to developed countries. Imagine how well they would have done if the Communists hadn't been oppressing everyone, antagonizing what should be Cuba's biggest trading partner and generally meddling in the economy for the past 5 decades. So what? I can't see where anyone's comments have much to do with the original article, nor any reason why we should care.
Cuba started in about the same position as Haiti. If Cuba has acheived the human index status of Australia - which is silly, btw - that is entirely to Cuba's credit, including it's system of government. The proper comparison is with Haiti - after allowing for the great beneifts Haiti has received in the friendship and help of the US (which has at times chosen its leaders for it, loaned it lots of money, advised and trained its officials, sent helpful soldiers to defend the people, not embargoed or blockaded it as a matter of policy for fifty years, etc). People risk their lives to escape - actually, get to America (they don't usually try for freedom in Jamaica like that) - from every Caribbean island. A big wave of them from Haiti was famous, not too long ago. They were more desperate than the Cubans, being poorer and facing a longer trip. The US put them in concentration camps, then shipped them back. Haiti has been "aligned" with the US, all along, see.
Maybe back when Columbus showed up. While there are superficial similarities in the political evolution and relations with the US in the early 20th century, Haiti had been an economic basket case for quite some time, unlike Cuba. Large portions of Haiti's labor force worked as seasonal workers in the Cuban sugar industry throughout the early 20th century, which should give us some idea of their relative prosperities. Then, of course, there are the differences in the cultures, demographics and colonial histories of the two countries. Which is it that you find silly? The human development index, or Cuba's rating? The enlightening comparison is with every country in the world. Presumably, then, we must also subtract out the help that Cuba got from the USSR over the decades. And we must also account for the decade during which US aid to Haiti was suspended (which happens to coincide nicely with the beginnings of the Cuban embargo). Then we have to realize that there's no meaningful way to subtract out decades of geopolitics and leave any two countries in some kind of sterile moral laboratory that would conform to your definition of "fair comparison." To the extent that you're even using the word "fair" to mean anything beyond "reinforcing a particular view of the United States," anyway... At the end of the day, Cuba's been an independent nation for some time now, and is, as a polity, answerable for the course they've charted for themselves. If you want to insist that Cuba's performance only tells you how well Socialism/Castro/etc. performs in the context of an island right next to America during the Cold War, then go ahead. But the fact will remain that that is exactly what Cuba is. How well such entities would have fared in some alternate universe is not an interesting comparison, no matter how fair it may seem to you. Please name another Caribbean island with a reasonably good human development index that also produces consistent waves of refugees. It's not surprising that poor, hungry people would flee their homelands. It does, however, say something that people are desperate to excape Cuba despite universal healthcare, education, adequate food supplies and economic growth.
Adjusted for similarity of circumstance. I think you were comparing Cuba with Australia, at one point - that would have to be done carefully. Exactly. We see, for example, the effects of US embargo (and blockade, partly - the US Navy enforces this embargo) for fifty years, compared with the effects of a US suspension of governmental aid (some of it) for ten years. And we see the effects of Soviet aid, compared with the effects of US aid. We campare like with like, as closely as possible given reality, with the variable of interest as isolated as possible: - the "capitalist", US-backed and supported system of Haiti, right next to the US where it has received maximum aid for over a hundred years, with the "socialist" USSR-backed and supported system of Cuba, right next to the US where it has received maximum punishment and interference for over fifty years. Cuiba has not charted its course for itself- the embargoes and blockades were never Cuba's choice, nor could it do anything about them. Castro made several serious attempts to ally himself with the US, and was rejected at every turn. All Caribbean islands produce consistent waves of illegal immigrants to the US. You appear to credit the Russian support for the development, and blame the Cuban system of government for the "refugees", while blaming the gross interference of the US for nothing of significance. Why not the other way around? Why not credit the Cuban innovations for the obvious improvements compared with neighboring islands, and the Soviet imposed system of oppression for the refugees? (Especially considering that the US drove Castro under the Soviet thumb, in the first place, rather than bringing him into its system. )
If you're intent on pursuing this line of thinking, you also need to factor in the fifty years of support the US provided Cuba prior to the revolution. Also, if the US had really exerted "maximum punishment and interference," Castro would have been removed via an armed invasion back in the Eisenhower administration. A serious attempt for Castro to ally himself with the US is a contradiction in terms, as any serious attempt to align Cuba with the US would necessarily have required his removal from power. You can go ahead an insist that the United States forced Cuba's hand at every turn, but this reduces them into some kind of anti-colony with no more authorship than they possessed prior to the revolution, or independence. I don't accept this, and I don't think that the Cuban people do either. America is not all-powerful, and certainly did not force Cuba into expropriating American assets, forgoing elections or hosting nuclear missiles for the USSR. We can't even get our treaty allies to go along with the embargo, and Castro is still around, years after the demise of the Soviet system, which gives lie to the claim that they had no choice but Soviet alignment. That Castro may have wanted to have it both ways isn't relevant. Politics is about choosing between problematic alternatives, and Cuba made her choice. And exactly how many of them have human development indices comparable to Cuba? No, I was very explicit in assigning responsibility to Cuba as a polity. They went into it with their eyes open, and it infantilizes them to suggest that they were simply pawns in their own country. You pays your money, and you takes your choice. The good things they have achieved are to Cuba's credit, and the bad things they've achieved are to Cuba's detriment. Your whole game of dividing up authorship so that it conforms to your ideological preferences is silly, and seems to be little more than a pretext for posting repeated denunciations of US policy towards Castro.
That was the form of the rejection, which was unilateral by the US. Castro toured the US, at one point, in an attempt to get US support for the new Cuban government. Your development indices apparently assign Cuba some kind of geopolitical equivalence with Australia. That makes them irrelevant - as well as goofy. And I was equally explicit in pointing out the deceptions entailed by that. You cannot legitimately assign Cuba responsibility for the unilateral actions of the US. Cuba made its choices from a set of options severely restricted by US restriction, threat, and violence.
