Matthew Yglesias (February 19, 2008) - Castro Reactions (Foreign Policy)

Our stated, exil-driven policy regards getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago as an "essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba."

As Atrios pointed out, because of our stupidity, it will never happen because the Europeans own it all(at least a lot of it) now.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 19, 2008 11:15 AM

And yet, our policies are so screwed up that this counts as a progressive measure.

No, this counts as someone who wants a shot at winning Florida in November without handing it over on a silver platter to McCain.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 19, 2008 11:19 AM

Clinton is apparently a hard-liner on Cuba. Can anyone explain why, exactly? Revanchiste Cuban exiles have never been a Dem interest group.

Posted by MattF | February 19, 2008 11:20 AM

Clinton is apparently a hard-liner on Cuba. Can anyone explain why, exactly? Revanchiste Cuban exiles have never been a Dem interest group.

Maybe it's about how close Florida was in 2000, and any tiny bit of movement or comfort those voters have with her (as the Dem nominee) will help.

After all, liberal dems in Florida won't vote for the Republican nominee because the Dem is "tough" on Cuba.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 19, 2008 11:23 AM

"getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago"

Meyer Lansky is dead.

Posted by Garuda | February 19, 2008 11:23 AM

Our stated, exil-driven policy regards getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago as an "essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba."

Isn't this analogous on the Palestinian leadership insisting on a right of return for refugees, at least as a rhetorical negotiating stance? [In both cases, the problem is that the sides refuse to really sit down in good faith and hash out a peace plan. In both cases, the status quo serves the interests of entrenched elites.]

Posted by nbt | February 19, 2008 11:23 AM

No, this counts as someone who wants a shot at winning Florida in November without handing it over on a silver platter to McCain.

Would it really be handing Florida to McCain? What if Obama was for lifting travel restrictions? Besides, HoJo will campaign for McCain down there so it will make it doubly tough. If we can win Ohio, we don't need Florida. Has anyone done a state by state thing lately?

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 19, 2008 11:27 AM

Meant to say "analogous to..."

But in any case, prepositions in English idioms are notoriously arbitrary, so what the hell.

Posted by nbt | February 19, 2008 11:31 AM

Would it really be handing Florida to McCain?

Personally, I think so. But I could be wrong.

What if Obama was for lifting travel restrictions?

While that's something I would personally favor for American policy, McCain could use that to call Obama soft on Cuba and rally support against him.

Florida has has a Republican governor for a long time - and the new one is already stumping for McCain.

I think Florida is going to be hard to win as it is. And I wouldn't want to make it any harder. After 50 years, I don't have a problem waiting 10 more months to signal a change in our policy.

McCain's natural demographic of retired persons down there will also help him out.

But like I said, I could be wrong.

If we can win Ohio, we don't need Florida.

Probably true, but it would be nice to win as much as possible. And we lost Ohio last time.

Posted by SoCalJustice | February 19, 2008 11:33 AM

Our stated, exil-driven policy regards getting back the property exiles and US corporations lost decades ago as an "essential condition for the full resumption of economic and diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba."

Actually, no. That's just a "Sense of the Congress". It's not our government's official policy.

Our official policy is that the embargo may be suspended once a "transition government" is in place in Cuba, and the embargo may be terminated once a "democratically elected government" is in place in Cuba.

Whether a "transition government" and a "democratically elected government" exist to some extent take into account the extent to which Cuba commits to provide restitution for expropriated proprety, but neither depends on full restitution.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 11:33 AM

Maybe if the exiles stage an intifada, they'll win the right of return.

Al, that's a good post. It's worth noting that it's not a mere "sense of the Senate" thing (which came to mind on reading your post), but rather a law passed by Congress and signed by the president. But you're right that it's not binding law, or even necessarily official stated policy.

Do you agree, Al, that the embargo cannot be understood in terms of statecraft and diplomacy? Castro has long since ceased to be a meaningful threat, and the embargo doesn't seem likely to push him from power at this point. It's all pique and domestic politics, isn't it?

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 19, 2008 11:46 AM

Maybe it's about how close Florida was in 2000

GIS: florida bush gore fsu 2000

Posted by Jeffrey Davis | February 19, 2008 11:46 AM

"If we can win Ohio, we don't need Florida. Has anyone done a state by state thing lately?"

Assuming Rasmussen's Robo-calls can be trusted, Hillary Clinton stands a better chance of winning Florida than Obama does. Unlike Obama, however, she currently trails McCain in WI, MN, PA, and OR. At this point, she faces an uphill battle just to break 200 electoral votes.

Democrats need to get over Florida. The Red/Blue divide in the past 2 elections had a great deal to do with the personal qualities of George W. Bush. He's no longer on the ticket, and we can expect to see substantial changes in the winning coalition of states in 2008. Not so long ago, California was reliably Republican and West Virginia was reliably Democratic.

Democrats can win elections without Florida in our column and we can just as easily lose elections with it. A lot can change in 9 months, but if the election were held today the polls indicate that Barack Obama would probably defeat John McCain and Hillary Clinton almost certainly would not. Her ability to win votes in Florida by pandering to Cuban exiles with a staunch defense of bad policies is irrelevant to this calculus.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 19, 2008 11:59 AM

My mom is Cubana and has never met her family because her dad left after Baptista was ousted.. It's about time I get to met my family.. End the embargo..

Posted by Ann | February 19, 2008 12:00 PM

It's also worth noting that Castro's expropriation of property happened to be the correct thing to do.

One cannot talk about property rights without talking about the initial distribution. Our property rights in the US should be respected because, with one exception, we didn't start out with a regime where all the property was doled out to a few obscenely rich individuals and businesses.

In contrast, many countries in Latin America have had to have land reform, because they had systems where nobody could own land except a privileged few. Indeed, the one place in the US that inherited such a system-- Hawaii, which had been a monarchy, and which had 5 landowners controlling something like 90 percent of the land-- had to have a land reform itself.

Castro expropriated property because under Batista, property was controlled by a minority of light-skinned elites and foreign multinationals, as well as organized crime and similar interests. Castro did many, many bad things in his 5 decades of tyranny, but expropriating and nationalizing property was not one of them.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 12:30 PM

"getting back the property ... US corporations lost decades ago"

Once a greedy parasitic capitalist, always a greedy parasitic capitalist. Don't lose sight of the dream. We'll return to enslave the brown people again someday!

Posted by Roth's Child | February 19, 2008 12:32 PM

I thought Hillary's position advocating partial invasion was thought provoking.

Posted by Wendy | February 19, 2008 12:41 PM

Well said, Dilan.

I always find it interesting how many Americans will praise the state-sanctioned elimination of Southern slave-owners' property rights, but angrily denounce foreign leaders who violate the property rights of feudal landowners or corporations that bribed long-dead dictators for concessions.

Posted by LaFollette Progressive | February 19, 2008 12:46 PM

That's a little overblown, don't you think, Dilan?

It's not as if Cuba underwent a vast increase in its citizens' standard of living after Castro liberated all that land. Rather, the new government experimented in collective farming (an abysmal failure) or gave the land to its supporters (simple theft). A Cuban peasant could be forgiven if he was unable to tell the difference between one corrupt dictatorship and the next.

That said, I have little sympathy for the exiles. After 50 years, it's time to earn a new fortune, not chase the old one because that's easier than working for a living.

Posted by heedless | February 19, 2008 1:12 PM

I think we should stay the course! After all our hard line stance seems to have forced Fidel to step down. Both our Cuba policy and the surge are working, them are facts.

Posted by Steve | February 19, 2008 1:20 PM

heedless:

You are about a quarter right. In actuality, for many Cubans, Castro improved things, for awhile-- dark-skinned peasants on the plantations were basically slave laborers before Castro took power. He built schools, hospitals, etc.

At the same time, obviously, his economic system stunk, his political repression was absolute, and things got even worse after the Soviet Union collapsed.

But the expropriation was still a good idea. In fact, because Castro expropriated, when Cuba gets a decent government, they will be able to do a lot more for the people than they would have had they had to work with the Batista-era property distribution.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 1:27 PM

Probably true, but it would be nice to win as much as possible. And we lost Ohio last time.

And there is a Democratic Governor and Sec of State this time. Blackwell isn't around any more to fix the election.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 19, 2008 1:31 PM

Do you agree, Al, that the embargo cannot be understood in terms of statecraft and diplomacy? Castro has long since ceased to be a meaningful threat, and the embargo doesn't seem likely to push him from power at this point. It's all pique and domestic politics, isn't it?

Mostly. While it is clear that the embargo won't force the Castros from power, I do think there is something to the effect that terminating the embargo might enhance the Castro's prestige thereby tending to perpetuate their regime. OTOH, ending the embargo would rob the Castros of one of the bogeymen they employ as a rationale for their authoritarianism. But, yes, as a general matter I think it more about domestic politics. Personally, I don't think the embargo is that big a deal - it's main function is to prevent American tourists from sampling one more Caribbean beach and to prevent American cigar smokers from getting the best cigars. Neither is that important.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 1:39 PM

It's also worth noting that Castro's expropriation of property happened to be the correct thing to do.

Alert Jonah Goldberg. We've got a great example for the paperback version!

In contrast, many countries in Latin America have had to have land reform, because they had systems where nobody could own land except a privileged few. Indeed, the one place in the US that inherited such a system-- Hawaii, which had been a monarchy, and which had 5 landowners controlling something like 90 percent of the land-- had to have a land reform itself.

Needless to say, Castro's expropriation has nothing at all to do with Hawaiian land reform. In Hawaii, private parties were permitted to purchase land. In Cuba, the government just took everything.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 1:43 PM

it's main function is to prevent American tourists from sampling one more Caribbean beach and to prevent American cigar smokers from getting the best cigars.

Unless you're Tom DeLay or Ahnuld, etc.

The obvious point here is that there's an impending generational shift on both sides of the water, and it's more important to build a policy towards Cuba that reflects modern US interests and engages with those who'll play a role in 21st century cross-strait relations than to shore up the votes of the older generation. Short term loss, perhaps, but a long-term gain that goes beyond electoral politics.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 19, 2008 1:49 PM

Thanks for the reply, Al.

I really don't care about the risk of enhancing the Castros' prestige, because it doesn't really affect much of much. And if they go from 2 to 3 on the international prestige-o-meter, they still can't do much of anything. Also, I agree that the demise of the bogeyman would be a bigger force.

As far as how big a deal the embargo is altogether, I can't see how it's good news for the standard of living of the average Cuban (lord knows there are bigger problems than the US embargo as to that, though), or for US sugar consumers. And it's not so great for people who want to travel to see their families. Agreed on indifference towards the imposition on tourism.

As a general matter, I don't think that unilateral sanctions accomplish much.

Posted by Elvis Elvisberg | February 19, 2008 1:52 PM

In Cuba, the government just took everything.

Yeah, it's not as if American patriots expropriated the property of those loyal to the old regime, and 'encouraged' them to settle further north.

Oh.

Posted by pseudonymous in nc | February 19, 2008 1:54 PM

Alert Jonah Goldberg. We've got a great example for the paperback version!

Al, a big tenet of fascism was exactly the type of corporatism that prevailed in Cuba BEFORE Castro. You are just as clueless as Goldberg in thinking that fascism is just some sort of all-purpose epithet rather than an actual political ideology that existed and which was generally supported by right-wing politicians and thinkers because it had attributes that were attractive to them.

Needless to say, Castro's expropriation has nothing at all to do with Hawaiian land reform. In Hawaii, private parties were permitted to purchase land. In Cuba, the government just took everything.

And given the state of things before Castro, it was perfectly appropriate for the government to take things. Look, in Latin America, conservative governments have a history of making bad deals with multinationals and rich folks in exchange for off-the-books kickbacks. Then the left wing governments come in and get condemned for reversing those deals. This is in no way unique to Cuba-- it has happened time and time again down there, most recently in Bolivia and Venezuela.

I am all for respecting property rights as long as the initial distribution was reasonably fair. But the first world concept of the sanctity of property rights simply has no application to a system like pre-Castro Cuba. Cuba was never going to escape its problems without expropriation. And I assure you that any democratic government that ever takes power there in the future will have no intention of giving any of it back.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 2:02 PM

Yes, I agree that there is an effect on people who may want to see their families. Although it is not clear to me the extent to which the Castro regime would allow people who left to come back to visit.

Also, as to the economic effect on the average Cuban, I think it is small. After all, you can be a small island with a large neighbor that doesn't trade with you and still prosper (see, e.g., Taiwan until recently). And Cuba can trade with every other country in the world - so there is no shortage of places to export to or of foreign investment sources. The economic effect of the embargo, as I see it, is that the hotels are Sofitel and Melia rather than Hilton and Hyatt. The economy will only improve when the government embraces capitalism again (the people themselves remain plenty capitalist, to the extent they can).

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 2:22 PM

Odd that I actually agree with Dilan for once. ALthough I would probably go further than him in supporting expropriations in some circumstances regardless of what the 'initial distribution' might have been.

It would probably have been better if expropriated land, factories, etc. had been redistributed, in large part, to smallholders and cooperatives. I think Cuba would have done better to adopt the Yugoslavian model (market socialism) instead of the ultra-path version that they actually took. But certainly, I would agree that the elite and bourgeois classes which controlled Cuba's economy prior to 1959 had very little right to any of 'their' property. This was a society in which a handful of idle playboys controlled almost the entire sugar industry and the people who actually did the work on the sugar plantations had nothing.

Dilan, 'corporatism' isn't a good word for the Batista regime, which was capitalist through and through- corporatism is better understood as a alternative to capitalism and socialism, something along the lines of Spain under Franco or Greece under Metaxas.

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 2:31 PM

And I assure you that any democratic government that ever takes power there in the future will have no intention of giving any of it back.

While everthing else about your post is wrong, this much I'd agree with. It's doubtful that a democratically elected government representing people living in the country would be that keen on giving property back to people who don't live in the country. But that said, I'd expect there will be attempts to come to an accomodation - some kind of restitution fund or the like.

Posted by Al | February 19, 2008 2:31 PM

I don't think Cuba is going to embrace 'capitalism' anytime soon, although I think that they will probably increase the role that the market plays in the economy. Based on what I've heard from friends who have spent time there isn't much sentiment in favor of _capitalism_ per se in Cuba, although there is dissatisfaction with the command economy and a desire for a greater role for the market. WHat people seem to be forgetting is that the Castro government, in spite of its faults, has remained a genuinely popular one.

It's also worth questioning how well American capitalism is going to weather the coming natural-resource shortages that are going to hit us sometime in the next few decades. Modern capitalism after all was built on the basis of cheap energy and cheap natural resources. If Cuba can hold out for another couple of decades, in the midst of a global energy crisis and economic recession their economy might not look that unattractive anymore. Hell, to a peasant in India or Africa the Cuban regime would not seem that unattractive _today_.

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 2:41 PM

That's the thing about commies. They always think this time is different -- because modern industrial society is so complex, you have to have a planned economy, or becaues resources are becoming scarcer (not a great assumption to make anyway), capitalism can't work anymore.

Posted by too many steves | February 19, 2008 2:47 PM

Dilan, 'corporatism' isn't a good word for the Batista regime, which was capitalist through and through- corporatism is better understood as a alternative to capitalism and socialism, something along the lines of Spain under Franco or Greece under Metaxas.

Hector, I understand the distinction you are drawing, but it was at least corporatist in the sense that they had the typical multinationals-and-kickbacks system that was common among right-wing regimes in Latin America.

The point is, Batista was quite a bit closer to "fascism" than Castro (or anything I would advocate), but the Als of the world don't realize that and just want to throw around the word "fascism" as one of their toys.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 19, 2008 2:54 PM

Well, the simple fact is that Cuba has been an island nation running a siege economy.

When Great Britain did that during WW II, they rationed and people had less. A recent nutrition study found that the English were eating healthier in WW II than they are today.

Posted by serial catowner | February 19, 2008 4:41 PM

Dilan,

I understand what you're saying, but I would still say Batista wasn't really a 'fascist'- unlike the right-wing leaders of, say, Argentina or Chile, he didn't have much of an ideology at all beyond enriching himself and his court. One of the reason's that the Revolution succeeded was that Batista's regime was so prodigiously corrupt and buffoonish that it had lost the support even of the middle classes and bourgeoisie- when it came down to the wire, not even his generals were willing to fight for him.

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 4:47 PM

"Also, as to the economic effect on the average Cuban, I think it is small. After all, you can be a small island with a large neighbor that doesn't trade with you and still prosper (see, e.g., Taiwan until recently)."

Apples and oranges. By the time Taiwan and the PRC could actually trade, the average Taiwanese was much richer than the average Chinese person. In fact, a decent amount of China's post-1978 growth has come from investment from Taiwan and the rich Southeast Asian Chinese minority. Our embargo has robbed Cubans of diaspora FDI.

Posted by Reality Man | February 19, 2008 4:48 PM

Too many steves,

you can go on thinking that the American capitalist model of indefinite growth and consumption can go on forever. I would bet against it. Pretty soon we'll be able to see who's right. I'm a socialist, by the way, not a Communist.

one of the reasons why Cuba may be well placed to survive the end of cheap energy.

http://www.harpers.org/archive/2005/04/0080501

Posted by Hector | February 19, 2008 4:58 PM

Just a quick heads-up: Hawaii has never had land reform, just a change of title. Kamehameha III took the existing "townships" and put them under direct control of their existing chiefs. Most of these chiefs sold off "their" land to the sons of American missionaries, who then consolidated them into vast estates.

The fact that the Big Five landowners have let a few acres slip by didn't cut it. "Reform" is now taking the shape of selling off these lands one tract home at a time.

For extra credit, Google these terms:
"Great Mahele"
"ahupuaʻa"
"greedy alii"

Posted by cmholm | February 19, 2008 8:38 PM

I wouldn't expect any major Democrat to push really hard for a big change in U.S. Cuba policies (if they merit the term "policies") during the electoral cycle; once elected, that may change.

Posted by El Cid | February 19, 2008 8:42 PM

Castro did many, many bad things in his 5 decades of tyranny, but expropriating and nationalizing property was not one of them.

I'm not sure I agree. Wouldn't expropriating and then redistributing property have been the proper thing to do? That is, give it to individuals rather than have the government keep control of it?

But that said, I'd expect there will be attempts to come to an accomodation - some kind of restitution fund or the like.

That could probably work - give them something small, a token, so that both sides can claim some sort of victory and walk away having "saved face."

Posted by Glaivester | February 20, 2008 1:04 AM

Just a quick heads-up: Hawaii has never had land reform, just a change of title. Kamehameha III took the existing "townships" and put them under direct control of their existing chiefs. Most of these chiefs sold off "their" land to the sons of American missionaries, who then consolidated them into vast estates. The fact that the Big Five landowners have let a few acres slip by didn't cut it. "Reform" is now taking the shape of selling off these lands one tract home at a time. For extra credit, Google these terms:
"Great Mahele"
"ahupuaʻa"
"greedy alii"

Actually, Hawaii did have a partial land reform. Read the Midkiff case which went up to the Supreme Court and upheld it.

Posted by Dilan Esper | February 20, 2008 2:51 PM

Castro Reactions

Comments (42)

Search

Books by Matthew Yglesias

Recent Comments

Recent Posts

Weekly Archives

Categories