Thursday, April 7, 2011

We support democratic uprisings in the Middle East. Why not in Cuba?

We support democratic uprisings in the Middle East. Why not in Cuba?
By Andres Martinez, Thursday, April 7, 10:57 AM

The world has been transfixed recently by the struggles of people living
under atrophied dictatorships, who, empowered by new forms of
communication, have risen up and collectively said "no mas" — or the
Arabic equivalent. Individuals such as Wael Ghonim, the 30-year-old
Google marketing executive who galvanized the Egyptian opposition on
Facebook and spent a couple of weeks in prison for his efforts, have
been lionized on American newscasts.

So what happens when, amid all this, one of the world's most atrophied
military dictatorships sentences an American to 15 years in prison for
handing out communications equipment to religious groups so that they
might connect to the outside world? Should we expect outrage? A
cable-news drumbeat on behalf of the imprisoned American? Might Anderson
Cooper himself lead the rescue operation?

Not quite. U.S. Agency for International Development contractor Alan
Gross has indeed been convicted by a kangaroo court for providing
satellite phones to Jewish groups — a "crime" that in the legal parlance
of totalitarian regimes translates into "acts against the independence
and territorial integrity of the state." But Gross hasn't much ruffled
the Anderson Coopers of the world because the atrophied military
dictatorship is not in the Middle East, but closer to home, in Cuba.

Now, Cuba is no Egypt. Cuba's disdain for basic human rights and
democratic norms is far more startling a departure from the prevailing
conditions in its part of the world. And Cuba is far more shut off from
the outside world than Egypt is. There can be no heroic Google employees
or Twitteratis or Facebookers in Havana precisely because the communist
regime has been so successful at keeping Cuba sealed off from the
outside world and the 21st century. The "Arab Spring" may yet inspire
Cubans to demand more freedoms, but the fact that they are not on the
grid in any meaningful way makes that less likely.

It's appalling, meanwhile, how the Castro brothers, who have ruled the
island for more than half a century, continue to get a pass for their
behavior, as if they have a license to preside over a tropical gulag in
perpetuity.

It would be difficult to overstate the isolation of Cubans trapped on
that island. The spread of democracy throughout Latin America has been
one of the more auspicious global developments of the past 30 years, yet
even the region's most principled democratic leaders — former Brazilian
president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva comes to mind — embrace the Castros
and are willing to exempt them from regional democratic norms enshrined
in a series of treaties.

The American left is no friend of the Cuban people either, so eager are
liberals to atone (or to make Cubans pay) for our government's past
imperial overreach in the region. It's one thing to cheer attempts to
bypass totalitarian regimes' "master switch" in the Middle East, but it
is decidedly declasse in enlightened circles in this country to dwell on
the lack of freedoms in Cuba.

Nor is the American right a friend to Cubans; the Cuban American exile
community in Florida has long been the Havana regime's co-conspirator in
keeping their brethren on the island trapped in the past. The U.S.
embargo on Cuba is a stark departure from the American belief that more,
rather than less, commercial and cultural engagement is key to loosening
totalitarian regimes' grip on power. Our trade embargo and travel ban
empower the Castros by helping the regime keep the island hermetically
sealed and provide the regime a permanent license to deprive people of
their liberties: Claiming that they are besieged by "el imperio" gives
the Castro brothers the perfect alibi at home and throughout Latin America.

Former president Jimmy Carter traveled to Havana last week on a goodwill
mission that many mistakenly believed would culminate in Gross's
release. He referred to Fidel Castro, now retired but still looking over
his generalissimo brother's shoulder, as an "old friend," echoing the
widely held view of Fidel as a charmingly roguish uncle who can't bring
himself to abandon his adolescent enthusiasms (which include depriving
Cubans of essential freedoms).

Carter suggested that releasing Gross would be one of several measures
that could improve relations between Cuba and the United States. But
that is not what the Castros want, and they must want it even less given
what is happening in the Middle East. Why would they crack open the door
to the connectivity that inspires a networked identity among people,
encourages free speech and accelerates demands for generational change?
Havana has no need for the Googles and Facebooks of the world, and
keeping the 61-year-old Gross in prison guarantees that Barack Obama
cannot loosen the embargo anytime soon. In a sense, Carter was
counseling parties with no interest in reconciling.

Against this backdrop, it is easy to second-guess the wisdom or
effectiveness of official U.S.-sponsored efforts to strengthen civil
society groups in Cuba and introduce the rudimentary equipment needed to
get them on the global grid. But we should cheer Gross's larger cause,
as we did Wael Ghonim's cause, because they are one and the same.

The writer directs the Bernard Schwartz Fellows Program at the New
America Foundation.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-support-democratic-uprisings-in-the-middle-east-why-not-in-cuba/2011/04/04/AF6i7wuC_story.html

No comments:

Post a Comment