farewell raul - from the economist


Recommended Posts

Cuba bids goodbye to the revolutionary generation

There will be a new face at the top this month. At first, little else will change

 Print edition | The Americas

Apr 12th 2018| HAVANA

RAFAEL is about to finish his degree at Havana University, but his mind is elsewhere. The finance and economics he is learning are “what they use here in Cuba”, he explains, ie, not much use anywhere else. Cuba’s socialist government pays for his education but the stipend for living expenses is just $4 a month, enough for ten meals at the university canteen. Additional lunch money comes from his siblings, who live abroad. Rafael (not his real name) wants to go, too. He is looking for scholarships to get a master’s degree in Europe. If he finds one, he plans to stay abroad, where he can earn real money.

Rafael is among the many young Cubans who respond to their crimped prospects not by agitating against the system but by plotting to escape it. He does not oppose Cuba’s communist regime, nor does he take much interest in it. So he is unexcited by a power shift that will make headlines around the world. On April 19th Raúl Castro (pictured left) plans to step down as president, bringing to an end nearly 60 years of rule by the family that led the country’s revolution. Rafael thinks it is time for Mr Castro to go. But “it doesn’t matter to me.”

It will matter to most of Cuba’s 11m people, who have no easy way off the island. In a country where transfers of power are rare, the one about to occur is momentous. Mr Castro, who is 86, is expected to hand power to the “first” vice-president, Miguel Díaz-Canel. He had not been born when Raúl’s brother, Fidel Castro (pictured right), toppled the American-backed dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista in 1959. The post-revolutionary generation will bring a change in style and raise Cubans’ expectations of their government. It is unclear whether the new leaders will meet them.

Cuba neolibre?

Mr Díaz-Canel, an engineer by training, has acquired a reputation for modesty during his quiet three-decade ascent through government and the Communist Party. As a leader in his home province of Villa Clara, in central Cuba, he rode around on a bicycle rather than in an official car. At the (one-party) parliamentary elections last month, he queued up with other voters and chatted to the press (Mr Castro zipped in and out of his polling station).

Mr Díaz-Canel has sometimes seemed more liberal than other apparatchiks. He backed gay rights before it was fashionable. In 2013 he calmed a furore caused by the censorship of some student bloggers who were critical of the government. He met the students in front of the press and said that in the internet age “banning something is almost a delusion.”

His elevation to the presidency will be part of a broader generational change. Several octogenarian conservatives, such as José Ramón Machado Ventura and Ramiro Valdés, will probably leave the council of state, a body with lawmaking powers. Mr Díaz-Canel is expected to replace government ministers with his own people.

But substantive change, if it happens, will not be abrupt. Although la generación histórica will no longer run the government day to day, it will still be influential. Until 2021 Mr Castro is expected to remain head of the Politburo, which controls the Communist Party and thus the overall direction of policy. Mr Ventura will remain second-in-command. Mr Díaz-Canel will be only the third most powerful member.

He may not be the reformer some Cubans are hoping for. In a speech to a private Communist Party meeting, a video of which was leaked last August, he vowed to shut down critical media and boasted of his efforts to throttle civil society. He called the loosening of the American embargo on Cuba by President Barack Obama starting in 2015 an attempt to destroy the revolution. Mr Díaz-Canel was shoring up his flank to ensure his promotion to the presidency, says William LeoGrande, of American University in Washington, DC. Others see the speech as evidence that Mr Díaz-Canel will be no friendlier to critics of the regime or to the United States than the Castros were. No one expects him to allow opposition parties or to free the press.

A more plausible hope is that Mr Díaz-Canel will follow the example of communist parties in China and Vietnam, which opened up markets and allowed citizens to enrich themselves while maintaining political control. But even this may not happen. Attractive as the prospect might sound, Cuban politicians fear it would turn their country into a sweatshop making cheap goods for rich Americans. Socialism, political scientists point out, was less entrenched in Vietnam than it is in Cuba.

But Mr Díaz-Canel cannot avoid economic reform of some kind. The economy is in terrible shape and getting worse. Venezuela, whose like-minded regime has provided aid in the form of subsidised oil, is in economic crisis and sending less of it. The fall in trade between the countries, from $8.5bn in 2012 to $2.2bn in 2016, caused Cuba’s first recession since the collapse of the Soviet Union, its benefactor during the cold war. Cuba’s budget deficit reached 12% of GDP last year, in part because the government had to clean up after Hurricane Irma, which struck last September.

State-controlled farms and factories are incapable of producing the goods Cubans demand, and a lack of foreign exchange makes it hard to pay for imports (see chart). Shortages, of everything from tampons to salt and sometimes electricity, are a plague. This is straining a 60-year-old covenant, under which the regime provides security, free public services and a tolerable standard of living in return for its people’s quiescence.

If Mr Díaz-Canel is to maintain it, he will not be able to avoid reforming the absurd system of twin currencies and multiple exchange rates. It distorts price signals, stunts productivity growth and keeps Cubans poor. The convertible peso (CUC), used by tourists and some state-owned enterprises for some purposes, is pegged to the dollar at 1:1. Most wages are paid in Cuban pesos (CUP), which ordinary folk can exchange for dollars at a rate of 24:1. At that rate, the typical government salary is worth $25 a month. There are six other official exchange rates between the two currencies, depending on what sort of organisation is doing the exchanging. For most state enterprises the rate is 1:1, which preposterously overvalues the CUP. Thus, some state firms get vast handouts which make them look productive when in fact they destroy value. In December Mr Castro said that currency reform “cannot be delayed any longer”.

But change will be painful. If the currency were suddenly unified and allowed to float, more than half of state-owned firms could go bust, putting hundreds of thousands of Cubans out of work. Members of the regime do not agree on whether the bigger risk is reforming too slowly or too fast. According to foreign diplomats, the government is talking informally to the German government, which has experience in unifying currencies.

Without the Castros’ revolutionary mystique, Mr Díaz-Canel’s performance will be judged more exactingly. That both makes economic reforms more urgent, and the short-term pain they will cause more dangerous to the regime. The new president may seek to boost his popularity before administering any economic shocks—by expanding internet access, for example. The government is planning a series of constitutional changes. These are thought to include cutting the number of seats in the National Assembly (from 605) and the number of vice-presidents (from six). The post of prime minister may be reintroduced. There is talk of recognising the right to self-employment in the constitution, a sop to the 580,000 people who work in trades opened up to entrepreneurs by the government. Cubans would vote on the changes in a referendum, giving Mr Díaz-Canel a measure of legitimacy.

But Cuba’s increasingly disenchanted people care more about economic results than constitutional tweaks. If Mr Díaz-Canel can deliver those, Rafael and youngsters like him might not dream of exile.

This article appeared in the The Americas section of the print edition under the headline "Farewell at last"

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

He called the loosening of the American embargo on Cuba by President Barack Obama starting in 2015 an attempt to destroy the revolution

May be the most honest and most true statement ever spoken by a Cuban leader. He clearly understands the true key to undermining the regime is indeed opening up access to Cuba, not blockading it. Unfettered access to Cuba would be the worst thing the regime could imagine. Like drug lords that know legalizing drugs would destroy them, the Cuban regime feeds off the embargo to prevent economic and cultural exposure from causing an uprising. It's also a great propaganda tool.

With an attitude like that, I see things likely to get worse under this guy than better.

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, NSXCIGAR said:

May be the most honest and most true statement ever spoken by a Cuban leader. He clearly understand the true key to undermining the regime is indeed opening up access to Cuba, not blockading it. Unfettered access to Cuba would be the worst thing the regime could imagine. Like drug lords that know legalizing drugs would destroy them, the Cuban regime feeds off the embargo to prevent economic and cultural exposure from causing an uprising. It's also a great propaganda tool.

With an attitude like that, I see things likely to get worse under this guy than better.

i think that is all true, pretty much.

that said, it shows the absurdity, indeed to put it as nicely as i can, the blockheadedness of endless presidents and administrations from all sides of politics to allow it to persist. if this embargo had been dumped decades ago, it would no longer have been an issue for so long. the castros would almost certainly have been little more than a footnote in history. 

the castros and their government can't overturn the embargo. hard to blame them for taking advantage (which is very different from condoning those actions), as hard as that might have been for the cuban people. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

if this embargo had been dumped decades ago, it would no longer have been an issue for so long. the castros would almost certainly have been little more than a footnote in history.

But if we assess these claims by the Castros to their citizens (re: the blockade's embargo's negative effect) to be largely a lie, then surely the removal of the embargo would not have prevented them from coming up with another lie to shift blame?

Clearly the embargo did not achieve the stated aims of JFK et al.  But I doubt lifting the embargo would have resulted in the Castro tenure and legacy playing out any differently.  If the wide open trade with Russia, Canada, Spain, the entire EU, etc. that has existed for the entire time didn't lift Cuba's economic fortunes, why would having the US as one more incremental trade partner have had any substantial effect?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Jimmy_jack said:

I don’t know where the blame lies anymore, pretty sure it’s shared. That said, my country does business with terrible people/governments that commit crimes against humanity. You’d think we could call this even and work out a friendship.

i think that is a nice sentiment but if you make it a person to person level, could you be friends with someone who has oppressed you and your family for decades and continues to do so? it is anything but even. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

But if we assess these claims by the Castros to their citizens (re: the embargo's negative effect) to be largely a lie, then surely the removal of the embargo would not have prevented them from coming up with another lie to shift blame?

Clearly the embargo did not achieve the stated aims of JFK et al.  But I doubt lifting the embargo would have resulted in the Castro tenure and legacy playing out any differently.  If the wide open trade with Canada, Mexico, Spain, South America, the EU, etc. that has existed for the entire time didn't lift Cuba's economic fortunes, why would having the US as one more incremental trade partner have had any substantial effect?

 

no suggestion that the castros are not dreadful people and that they have hurt their people for decades. but i think the suggestion that the embargo has made no difference is absurd. if that were true, why have it? 

they may have found another excuse. they may have actually been able to do much more for their people. we'll never know. but this appalling embargo has given them the reason they needed. 

but do you really think that there has been no negative effect? i would very much disagree. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I’m not saying I want the Castros over for dinner. They’re terrible people as are their followers that did their dirty work. 

Im simply saying that perhaps something could have been worked out that would have made life easier for the population. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Jimmy_jack said:

I’m not saying I want the Castros over for dinner. They’re terrible people as are their followers that did their dirty work. 

Im simply saying that perhaps something could have been worked out that would have made life easier for the population. 

we agree on the castros, for sure.

but what and with whom? surely it comes back to the decisions by the american government. that would have made it easier for the cubans. i guess the castros could have resigned but that was never going to happen and the american actions made it so much easier for them to stay in power. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Ken Gargett said:

but do you really think that there has been no negative effect? i would very much disagree. 

Unknowable to exact certainty, I acknowledge.

But to me it seems to be very, very marginal at most.  An analogy to me is that I never shop at Costco.  Literally never.  I buy everything from other stores.  With no hindrance to getting exactly what I want/need, except possibly for some very minor incremental cost (even that is debatable).  Does that have a real significant impact on my life?  Doesn't feel like it.

Being able to trade with the entire world ex-USA seems fairly similar.  I think it's a fairly modest declaration to say that Cuba's problems are almost entirely of their own making.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Ken Gargett said:

we agree on the castros, for sure.

but what and with whom? surely it comes back to the decisions by the american government. that would have made it easier for the cubans. i guess the castros could have resigned but that was never going to happen and the american actions made it so much easier for them to stay in power. 

I think we are saying the same thing. I’m just not as eloquent. I trying to say I don’t know why my govt can do business with Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, and others that are or have been worse (arguably) than the Cuban govt.

Obvious strategic reasons are there, I just wish the cold shoulder situation with Cuba was over. Not for the cigars, for the people. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

  I think it's a fairly modest declaration to say that Cuba's problems are almost entirely of their own making.

leaving aside the analogy that the states is costco, which makes little sense to me, i could not disagree more with this statement. sure, they have made plenty of awful decisions but to try and absolve america of any blame here is one enormous re-writing of history.

forgive me, love to continue this now but anything more from me will have to wait as i have to sign off for most of the rest of today, aussie time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Jimmy_jack said:

I think we are saying the same thing. I’m just not as eloquent. I trying to say I don’t know why my govt can do business with Egypt, China, Saudi Arabia, and others that are or have been worse (arguably) than the Cuban govt.

Obvious strategic reasons are there, I just wish the cold shoulder situation with Cuba was over. Not for the cigars, for the people. 

agree with that. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, TheGipper said:

If the wide open trade with Russia, Canada, Spain, the entire EU, etc. that has existed for the entire time didn't lift Cuba's economic fortunes, why would having the US as one more incremental trade partner have had any substantial effect?

There's a caveat to that in that trading with other countries is obscenely expensive for Cuba as cargo ships cannot dock in the US after leaving Cuba nor can a ship go from the US to Cuba directly. The embargo affects trade with all other nations. 

The embargo is an extremely powerful propaganda tool. Without it, it would be very difficult to blame Cuba's economic woes on outside factors. I think it's essential to end it for the population to even begin to question the regime.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, TheGipper said:

Being able to trade with the entire world ex-USA seems fairly similar.  I think it's a fairly modest declaration to say that Cuba's problems are almost entirely of their own making.

Totally agree with you.

Embargo - what Embargo ....??

https://munchies.vice.com/en_us/article/pgx5ab/red-gold

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, TheGipper said:

But if we assess these claims by the Castros to their citizens (re: the blockade's embargo's negative effect) to be largely a lie, then surely the removal of the embargo would not have prevented them from coming up with another lie to shift blame?

Another explanation would be a much harder sell. The embargo as the culprit is easy to explain, makes sense, is totally logical and does have measurable effects. It's the mother of all excuses. And as it happens to be a US embargo--a country that has been overtly meddling in Cuban affairs for 125 years including extreme corruption between it and the Batista regime that any Cuban alive in the 1950s understands well. The US imposing the embargo due to being simply enraged and punitive over their lack of control post-Revolution is not that far-fetched a story. The whole thing is a nice little package with a bow for the propagandists. 

21 hours ago, TheGipper said:

Clearly the embargo did not achieve the stated aims of JFK et al.  But I doubt lifting the embargo would have resulted in the Castro tenure and legacy playing out any differently.  If the wide open trade with Russia, Canada, Spain, the entire EU, etc. that has existed for the entire time didn't lift Cuba's economic fortunes, why would having the US as one more incremental trade partner have had any substantial effect?

Probably not, at least while the Soviets supported them. 

I also want to be clear that I'm not ascribing a great deal of negative effects to the embargo. To be sure, the vast majority of Cuba's problems are of their own doing. But the embargo makes a bad situation worse, and obviously was not an effective means of achieving the ends sought. 

21 hours ago, Jimmy_jack said:

That said, my country does business with terrible people/governments that commit crimes against humanity.

The ineffectiveness of the embargo is second only to its hypocrisy. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 4/17/2018 at 6:47 PM, TheGipper said:

Clearly the embargo did not achieve the stated aims of JFK et al.  But I doubt lifting the embargo would have resulted in the Castro tenure and legacy playing out any differently.  If the wide open trade with Russia, Canada, Spain, the entire EU, etc. that has existed for the entire time didn't lift Cuba's economic fortunes, why would having the US as one more incremental trade partner have had any substantial effect?

 

While lifting the embargo would probably bring some more money to the island, the largest impact will be the US culture. We'll flood it with money I'm sure, but we'll also bring along a Starbucks on every corner, The McCuban Sandwich, and pretty much anything else we can pipe into a little island right off our coast. That's a lot of pressure and will force some change. Blue Jeans and Bon Jovi are powerful. Not sure it will all be good, but it will be different.

Won't happen though as long as Florida is a swing state with a sizable population that wants the embargo. Too much power at stake to risk upsetting someone.

I may be a little cynical.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Magus said:

While lifting the embargo would probably bring some more money to the island, the largest impact will be the US culture. We'll flood it with money I'm sure, but we'll also bring along a Starbucks on every corner, The McCuban Sandwich, and pretty much anything else we can pipe into a little island right off our coast. That's a lot of pressure and will force some change. Blue Jeans and Bon Jovi are powerful. Not sure it will all be good, but it will be different.

Won't happen though as long as Florida is a swing state with a sizable population that wants the embargo. Too much power at stake to risk upsetting someone.

I may be a little cynical.

If we lift the Embargo, the Cuban/Castro legacy will be in tatters withing a decade.  What emerges may not be any less corrupt or beneficial for their nation.  Corruption and Latin America will always be hand & hand.  How corrupt and the direct effect on the citizens is the question.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, BrightonCorgi said:

If we lift the Embargo, the Cuban/Castro legacy will be in tatters withing a decade.  What emerges may not be any less corrupt or beneficial for their nation.  Corruption and Latin America will always be hand & hand.  How corrupt and the direct effect on the citizens is the question.

Fantastic for the Cuban people lifting the (non-existing) "embargo" and getting rid of this legacy.

As to corruption - suggest you make it : Corruption and the world will always be hand in hand ... :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Magus said:

We'll flood it with money I'm sure, but we'll also bring along a Starbucks on every corner, The McCuban Sandwich, and pretty much anything else we can pipe into a little island right off our coast.

I read this sort of thing all the time about Cuba and the much-hated US based franchises taking over Cuba if the embargo is lifted.  I don't get this thinking. 

There's no embargo between Cuba and Canada.  So why isn't there a Tim Hortons on every corner?  No embargo between UK and Cuba, so why aren't there Tescos? 

It's not any embargo that keeps foreign investment out.  Do we even think the Cuban government wants foreign investment and the attendant extension of private property rights necessary to do so?  I doubt it.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, TheGipper said:

I read this sort of thing all the time about Cuba and the much-hated US based franchises taking over Cuba if the embargo is lifted.  I don't get this thinking.

Exactly. The embargo could end at dawn, and nothing changes without Cubans allowing it. Secondly, if Cubans want certain shops, etc, who are we to say they shouldn't? That's people wanting Cuba to stay the way it is for their own selfish reasons.

I blame all the governments who chose U.S. $$ over Cuba......  :wink2:

P.S. some years back, I seem to recall mention of a Victorinox or Swiss Army store opening somewhere in Havana ( I think it was one of José's posts ). I could certainly be mistaken, but I don't recalll anyone pissing and moaning about that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well the more things change the more they stay the same. The new Cuban president is a hardline communist who hates private independent business in his country. Raul is still behind the scenes pulling all the puppet strings. The Cuban economy is in the dump.  And the Trump admin. is not going to give Cuba the time of day with the current status quo, so there you go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, TheGipper said:

I read this sort of thing all the time about Cuba and the much-hated US based franchises taking over Cuba if the embargo is lifted.  I don't get this thinking. 

There's no embargo between Cuba and Canada.  So why isn't there a Tim Hortons on every corner?  No embargo between UK and Cuba, so why aren't there Tescos? 

 

Probably a touch of arrogance :) , but mostly pessimism. I - and I believe a number of Americans - have a [overly] romanticized notion about Cuba and worry those ideas/fantasies would be destroyed. Selfish, but it's there just the same.

I could be wrong though; wouldn't be the first time. I'm assuming that the Cuban people haven't dealt much with the highly-aggressive capitalism the US offers. I've dealt with a number of companies from different parts of the world (mostly Western, so still limited) and only seen certain qualities from US companies, but that is all anecdotal. Also it could be our tactics would completely backfire in that culture. Still, I don't see how opening relations to 300MM potential tourists only a short ride away wouldn't be impactful.

Y'all are correct though; nothing would happen w/o Cuba's consent. And IMO if they want to stay exactly the same, or go full NASCAR, that is their right to decide their own fate.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, NYgarman said:

Well the more things change the more they stay the same. The new Cuban president is a hardline communist who hates private independent business in his country. Raul is still behind the scenes pulling all the puppet strings. The Cuban economy is in the dump.  And the Trump admin. is not going to give Cuba the time of day with the current status quo, so there you go.

one would assume that this will be the way they go, based on some of his speeches. but i wonder if it might be worth holding off before we make any decisions and giving the bloke a chance. i listened to an interview with a reporter for the NYT who has been following all this and is based in cuba. he said very few people really know much about him at all but he'd been highly regarded in the various provinces he worked, was considered competent, pushed for education (cuba has always been big on that) and was actually instrumental in pushing for the opening of one of the few gay clubs in cuba (had no idea there were any). apparently against considerable opposition. so he might not be such a hardliner. 

but i really do not see any lessening of tension between cuba and the states until the states lift the embargo. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Ken Gargett said:

one would assume that this will be the way they go, based on some of his speeches. but i wonder if it might be worth holding off before we make any decisions and giving the bloke a chance. i listened to an interview with a reporter for the NYT who has been following all this and is based in cuba. he said very few people really know much about him at all but he'd been highly regarded in the various provinces he worked, was considered competent, pushed for education (cuba has always been big on that) and was actually instrumental in pushing for the opening of one of the few gay clubs in cuba (had no idea there were any). apparently against considerable opposition. so he might not be such a hardliner. 

but i really do not see any lessening of tension between cuba and the states until the states lift the embargo. 

I agree. And at the current time our US President has much bigger fish to fry than US-Cuba relations. North Korea being at the top of the list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.