Leroy Binns | Cuba’s political and economic calamity runs deep

For centuries the Third World has endured an unbroken entanglement of subjugation at the hands of Western Empires. Otherwise said, the chronicle of servitude has culminated in modern day pillaging to which Cuba is no exception.

Prior to the colossal revolution of the mid-20th century, Cuba initiated varying but superficial forms of government devoid of social change yet true to the often quoted Machiavellian aphorism ‘the end justifies the means.’ Historical records revealed the exchange of Arawak and Carib governance with imposed Spanish rule at the behest of the monarch and the replacement of individual farming schemes with collective agricultural reforms. Materialisation through cooperatives also legitimised enslavement of imported African slaves on the island and a ruling class that manipulated the services of labourers mainly through the production of sugar cane in a quest for profit.

A transfer of authority highlighted an aroma of desensitisation as US succession in Cuba subsequent to her independence in 1902 led to substantiated acts of victimisation. Washington utilised the Monroe Doctrine (1823) and the Platt Amendment (1901) to contain domestic growth and thereby gave credence to colonialism as a stabilising force.

Cuba experienced perpetual economic stagnation by way of consecutive governments the likes of Tomás Estrada Palma to Carlos Manuel de Céspedes, its gentry and a foreign power, the United States. Despite the monumental 1933 revolution, the abrogation of the Platt Amendment and the passage of trade agreements in 1934 ascribed in part to Ramón Grau, the national leadership was philosophically and financially restrained by Washington and thus was unprepared to rid herself of an archaic regimen. In essence the commencement of legislation that encouraged a constitutional government and agrarian reforms did not alter the continuance of the class system in Cuban society.

FELL SHORT

Elections of Fulgencio Batista in 1940 and Ramón Grau in 1944 fell short of expectations. Instead nepotism and graft prevailed as the former would later abandon the 1940 constitution and legislative organs. In addition, incompetence by the other to bridge the political and economic divide jointly created by the West and the establishment provoked change agents at home and abroad. Such advocacy championed the drive for democratic ideals that involved the incorporation of the masses into the country’s political mainstream.

The elevation of Fidel Castro as alternate to the recycled Batista in 1959 while opening a new chapter in Cuba’s political history prolonged elements of the past. Attempts to overcome foreign interference with the substitution of a socialist platform inclusive of health, education and agricultural programs were confronted with fierce denouncement and disregard for humanity by the White House. Ideological and practical condemnation was displayed through propaganda, an aborted invasion (1961), a trade embargo (1962) and the expulsion from the Organization of American States (1962). Moreover, comradeship with some Latin American, Caribbean and African nations and more so reluctance to conform to the dictates of America leaves Cuba at odds with its closest geographical neighbour.

A linkage between past and present portrayals of financial deprivation becomes more glaring with the escalation of US constraints. While the Obama administration restored diplomatic relations between both countries in 2015, Trump chilled such connectivity two years later and Congress remains numb to the reversal of the interdiction valued at a loss of over $130 billion over six decades to the Cuban economy.

RESTRICTIONS

Some US restrictions on Cuba include – prohibition of US aid, ban on US arms exports, restricted travel, and veto of monetary assistance from the World Bank and the IMF.

The rollercoaster ride preferenced the island as a transition from the antagonistic policies of the Trump administration gave way to a reprieve. With the installation of President Joe Biden travel was reinstated with scheduled and chartered flights from US cities to Havana and Santiago de Cuba, remittances were decriminalised void of restrictions and family reunifications resumed through the Cuban Family Reunification Parole Program. Moreover, pending initiatives encompassed the removal of the country from the state sponsors of terrorism list, a re-engagement of diplomacy and possibilities for an ongoing mutual dialogue on matters of human rights.

Unfortunately the adage “history repeats itself” corroborated misadventure. In this case, it reflected a reversal of fortune that not only terminated steps toward normalcy but agitated elements of the past. Aside from endorsement of an ongoing trade embargo, the Trump administration is indirectly crippling the Cuban energy sector via sanctions on Venezuela thus limiting her ability to produce and sell oil at complimentary rates to Havana. His affinity for unprovoked punishment in the form of an imposition of 25 per cent tariff on Mexico is consequential for the Cuban economy that depends on shipments of Mexican oil. In addition, an anticipated increase in the price of goods and services emanating from a trade war in the making can only spell disaster for the Miguel Díaz-Canel government that is reeling from constant external provocations.

The apprehensions skyrocket with Washington’s accusations of a Cuban regime that promotes forced labour through a multi-year cooperation agreement. In an effort to accelerate the state of affairs, Washington intends to tighten the screws on the island by bringing closure to an exchange package that supplies medical practitioners to the developing world in return for other human or material resources. If successful, this exploit would further drain the ailing Cuban coffer and also that of the many other Third World countries that are dependent on the services rendered.

In the absence of the Cold War, Cuba has been unceremoniously awarded the designation of a pariah. Is it then safe to assume she will overcome such a reservation to enjoy independence or be subject to awaiting Washington’s consent? If the latter rings true, the superpower is culpable of consistently validating colonialism or a derivative thereof – a reprehensible relic centuries old.

Dr. Leroy A. Binns is adjunct senior lecturer at Department of Government, UWI Mona Western Jamaica Campus. Send feedback to marketing.communication@uwimona.edu.jm