Benjamin P. Tyree. The Washington Times. March 13, 2001
Second in a series
HAVANA. -- "You have a problem with immigration; but that is your
problem. It is not our problem."
That was how Ricardo Alarcon, president of Cuba's National Assembly,
outlined the situation recently in a two-hour interview with a group of of
visiting American opinion writers.
He said that, despite the 1979 Mariel boatlift and rafters, the number
of Cubans migrating to the U.S. is not as great as those from elsewhere in the
region — "not to mention Mexican border crossings."
"Negotiated agreements have provided some order for immigration —
but Cuba by far is not as great a problem as others in the Hemisphere," Mr.
Alarcon said. He noted that in recent years Coast Guard intercepts, aimed at
turning back Cubans on the high seas, that "add to the risks of both
migrants and smuggling."
He suggested that if the United States "fully and conscientiously
implemented the spirit of the [Cuban] agreements, you would have a normal
immigration situation with Cuba. And the U.S. could use this as an argument in
talks with other countries." At present, the preferential treatment
accorded Cuban migrants is a grievance among nationals of other states.
Mr. Alarcon asked, "Without the social revolution in Cuba, how
many Cubans would you have in the U.S.? Probably more." He noted that in
recent decades much migration from Cuba and other Caribbean areas has been
driven more by economic than political factors, unlike the 1959 Cuban exiles,
whom he termed "rafters on yachts."
On normalization and trade, Mr. Alarcon was equally blunt: "The
whole problem is the inability of the U.S. to admit Cuba as an independent
nation. They think the United States gets authority — from where? God
perhaps — to decide how Cuba should be."
He cited the long American suzerainty over Cuba that began with the end
of the Spanish-American War in 1898 and terminated formally with the 1934
withdrawal of the Platt Amendment, which had entitled the U.S. to directly
intervene in internal Cuban political affairs. There followed a long period of
strong U.S. influence ended by the 1959 Castro revolution. "The role the
U.S. played in Cuba, as though Cuba were part of the U.S., broke down, as it had
to, like in the Colonies under King George."
As far as Fidel Castro is concerned, Mr. Alarcon said: "I don't
know. You can cross your arms and do nothing and just wait for someone to die.
And when that happens, you can cross your arms again and wait for someone else
to die. In the meantime, nothing will change between us." Concerning
possible successors to Mr. Castro (some observers think of Mr. Alarcon as one),
Mr. Alarcon said it would not necessarily be a duplicate of Mr. Castro. "Every
human being is different," he said. "Every individual is a world in
himself." (Western diplomats in Havana tend to agree, however, that the
successor will be found among the leadership presently in Cuba.)
Mr. Alarcon said Americans tend to think of relations with Cuba in
terms more suited to 1959. "Forty years later, Cuba is different; it's no
longer the case of a single person around which everything moves. There is a new
generation in Cuba now. Fidel Castro is still there because he was quite young
in 1959, and he is a very healthy and intelligent person — who leads a very
active life. But the population has changed. The vast majority of the National
Assembly members are 43 years old. Most current leaders were not even born in
1959." But this new generation of Communist Party leaders, he seemed to
warn, will not fold their tents and totally discard the 1959 Revolution.
He said: "Cuba is not near collapse — but is moving toward
recovery. Economic growth last year at 5.6 percent was above the Latin American
average. Internationally, no other country has been willing to join the U.S.
embargo."
He said that, despite modifications and joint ventures with foreign
enterprises, Cuba is "not privatizing its economy. If you lift the embargo,
an American company can come down and do business with Cuba — act like
everyone else, like France, and Canada, and so forth. . . . Investment is
regulated by law. . . . Lifting the embargo would enhance Cuba's position. The
blockade puts Cuba at a disadvantage. We must pay more, and get paid less."
He suggested it should be in American interests, in terms of trade, for
the U.S. "to become a more important partner for Cuba — not as 50
years ago, but incrementally." He noted that Cuba could buy rice from the
producers in the American South, instead of more distant sources. (A sticking
point, even in embargo modifications, has been the unavailability of U.S.
credits to Cuba.) Other Cuban officials also saw fertilizer as a possible U.S.
import.
Mr. Alarcon said U.S. authorities should review the policy of curtailed
contact, as one that is not producing the desired results. He said, "If an
adversary has a wrong perception of reality, it would be better, if they want
normal relations, for them to understand what is going on."
Regarding Cuban dissidents, he claimed the Castro regime is "not
intensely repressive. . . . Some of them we jail; others we do not. Mostly we
try to fight them politically." Western diplomatic sources estimate there
are 400 political prisoners in Cuba. Mr. Alarcon contrasted this to "other
countries, where thousands are in jail or are extralegally killed," and he
claimed most Cuban dissident groups are U.S.-funded.
As far as post-Cold War American triumphalism, Mr. Alarcon warned that
glory may be fleeting. "Take care. Go back to the CIA report that projects
a dangerous world in the midzone of Latin America. I don't want to project a
catastrophic future," he continued, "but I don't think we can predict
the end of social upheavals. Does America think the whole area is a garden,
outside Cuba? People [in the larger region] are escaping, essentially, poverty
and backwardness. And poverty is not being reduced."
On near-term U.S. relations, Cuban officials take a wait-and-see
posture. They suggest President Bush may owe a considerable political debt to
Florida's anti-Castro Cuban exile community. Mr. Alarcon said, "I don't
think for most Americans Cuba is very important." As for as any tempering
of U.S. positions under Mr. Bush, Mr. Alarcon quipped: "You might ask
Saddam Hussein. He might have an opinion."
Next: Economics and tragedy.
Benjamin P. Tyree is deputy editor of the Commentary section of The
Washington Times and recently visited Cuba under the aegis of the American
Journalism Foundation.
Calling
on communist Cuba
All site contents copyright © 2001 News World
Communications, Inc. | 