|
Jeff
Jacoby. Posted on Tue, Mar. 26, 2002 in The Miami Herald
Ending ban on trade won't buy freedom
In truth, no one knows what will happen when Castro shuffles off this mortal
coil, just as no one knows when that will happen. El Jefe is 75 and in seeming
good health. He could remain in power for another year -- or another decade.
But why must political change await his death? Oswaldo Payá, the
founder of Cuba's Christian Liberation Movement, derides that attitude as "biological
fatalism.''
Unwilling to delay all hope of democratic reform until Castro dies, Payá
two years ago launched the Varela Project, a massive petition drive in support
of new laws that would ensure freedom of speech and assembly, provide amnesty
for political prisoners, legalize private businesses and unrig Cuban elections.
It is based on Article 88 of the Cuban constitution, which requires that a
proposed law be put to a public vote if 10,000 citizens sign a petition
supporting it.
A pipe dream? Perhaps. More than 10,000 signatures have been collected
(though not yet submitted), but no one really expects Castro to abide by Article
88 and hold a plebiscite.
Yet that just makes the Varela Project all the more extraordinary. The
government has 'arrested, and sometimes beaten, dozens of signature-collectors;
Cubans who sign know that they are inviting retaliation. But they sign
nevertheless.
Ten thousand signatures will not topple Castro, but they send a powerful
message. ''What the government is most afraid of is not an American invasion,''
Payá says. "It is thousands of ordinary Cubans openly demanding
change.''
And what, meanwhile, of the American embargo on Cuban trade and travel?
Whose interests does it serve? Those of Payá and the countless Cubans who
yearn for freedom? Or those of Castro and the Communist Party?
A growing coalition of U.S. critics -- liberal Democrats, Catholic bishops,
agribusiness giants, libertarian free-traders -- argues that the embargo is an
antiquated relic. Far from weakening Castro, they say, the embargo props him up:
It gives him a scapegoat to rail against and an excuse for all his failures. By
contrast, lifting the embargo would kick away his crutch and expose Cuba to
American ideas and influence.
''There is no surer way to undermine the Castro regime,'' The Economist has
asserted, "than to flood his streets with American tourists, academics and
businessmen, with their notions of liberty and enterprise.''
I understand the argument. But I don't buy it.
The embargo has its drawbacks, but the case against it doesn't stand up to
scrutiny. Cuba may not be inundated with Americans -- although 80,000 of them
did visit the island last year -- but the past decade has brought a huge influx
of Canadians and Europeans. Their influence and exports and ''notions of liberty
and enterprise'' haven't weakened Castro's grip. So why would more Americans
make any difference?
True, Castro blames Cuba's shambles of an economy and endless shortages on
the embargo, but there isn't a Cuban over the age of 7 who doesn't recognize
that as a lie.
What has wrecked Cuba's economy is communism, not a lack of trade with
America. After all, Castro is free to do business with every other nation on
earth.
And make no mistake: Doing business with Cuba means doing business with
Castro. There is no private property in Cuba, no private enterprise, no private
employers. Foreign investors must deal with the government. They cannot hire
Cuban workers directly; a government agency chooses their workers for them.
The investors pay Castro handsomely in hard currency for each worker; Castro
in turn pays the workers a fraction of that amount in all-but-worthless pesos.
So long as Cuba's dictator maintains his stranglehold on every aspect of
Cuban life, ending the embargo would be counterproductive. It would do nothing
to end the far more restrictive embargo that Castro imposes on the Cuban nation.
It would give him the propaganda victory and the U.S. dollars he craves, but
it would do little to bring liberty or hope to ordinary Cuban citizens.
Every president since JFK has extended the Cuban embargo. To lift it in
exchange for nothing -- no free elections, no civil liberties, no improvement in
human rights -- would be a betrayal of the very people we want to help.
©2002 Boston Globe | 
