Published Monday, January 8, 2001, in the
Miami Herald
A recent shake-up in the Cuban Committee for Democracy, an exile group that
promotes dialogue with the island, has brought to light the tricky nuances of
attempting meaningful exchanges with the Cuban government.
It was reported last week that one of the group's
top officials had resigned amid speculation that a planned conference
between exiles and Cubans on the island had been put in danger by the expressed
views of the CCD's new leader.
The tension flared over the writings of new president Alejandro Portes, a
Princeton sociologist and respected researcher on the South Florida immigrant
experience.
Most scandalous to the Fidel Castro government was Portes' characterization
of mid-level Cuban officials living the fat life, while less privileged comrades
suffered scarcities.
Portes wrote a provocative analysis of Cuba's identity as "the little
besieged country,'' a convenient image kept alive in large part by U.S.
sanctions against the island government.
In the article "Strategic Neglect,'' published in the fall issue of The
American Prospect, Portes examines Cuba's decades-old survival tactics,
particularly its dependence on U.S. hostility to keep afloat its embattled
image.
No wonder the Castro government is up in arms over the article. Portes has
exposed the Cuban game: appear to receive dialogue, but reject substantial
exchange -- and change -- at all cost.
That such an article evokes even a stir from a regime that claims to welcome
engagement is telling. In the eyes of the world, the chief obstacle to open
relations with Cuba is the "right-wing exile lobby.'' Popular opinion
usually depicts exiles as the intransigents who reject views that are different
from that of the pack.
But in fact the great intolerance rises out of Havana insecurity. The very
fact that a conference designed to promote dialogue could be endangered by the
opinions of a scholar should tell us something about Cuba's true stand on open
talks: We'll let you talk as long as you say what we want to hear.
Isn't the core of healthy dialogue well-presented differences of opinions?
Apparently not in Havana, where officials still see a need to skew exchanges by
picking and choosing who will get exit permits to travel to conferences abroad.
"In defense of this intransigence, Fidel and his collaborators are
willing to meet with outsiders, host foreign leaders and delegations, and
posture as reasonable and tolerant people. But any genuine political or economic
threat is met with an iron fist,'' writes Portes, who believes the U.S.
government could strip Cuba of its "besieged country'' motif by lifting its
sanctions.
Ostensibly, the lifting of sanctions is what Cuba also wants.
But is it really?
Portes notes the curious episode of José Imperatori, the Cuban
diplomat ordered kicking and screaming out of Washington, D.C., last February
for his suspected role in a spy ring. The defiant Imperatori even went on a
hunger strike to proclaim his government's innocence.
"Why should an educated man like Imperatori defend a regime that he
knows to be economically and ideologically bankrupt?'' asks Portes. "The
standard answer is privilege.''
And the larger answer, as this scholar reveals, is Cuba's need to stay loyal
to its socialism -- not to any Marxist ideals, but to whatever keeps the
revolution going, be it tourism, foreign investments, cash remittances, and,
yes, the U.S. embargo.
A true opening, Portes concludes, might turn Castro into "just another
small-country dictator.''
I guess that's why such opinions can endanger attempts at dialogue.
Copyright 2001 Miami Herald | 