Repression in Cuba

Repression in Cuba
01/02/2015 6:38 PM 01/02/2015 6:38 PM

When Raúl Castro somberly informed the Cuban people in a nationwide
broadcast last month about the opening of full diplomatic relations with
the United States, he made it clear that his regime was not undergoing
drastic changes.

In a message designed to reassure nervous members of the Communist
Party's rank and file that they had nothing to worry about, he insisted
that the shift came "without renouncing a single one of our principles."

For those desiring real change for Cuba — a genuine opening and a
relaxation of the harsh controls on the activities of ordinary Cubans —
this sounded ominous. As indeed it has proved to be.

Last week, a few courageous Cubans decided to test the intentions of the
regime by attempting to carry out an "open mic" performance in Havana's
Revolution Square. Led by Cuban artist Tania Bruguera, who splits her
time between Havana and the United States, the plan was to ask citizens
to speak about their visions for the country.

It was plainly a basic act of self-expression, the sort of thing that
wouldn't raise an eyebrow elsewhere —but is disallowed in police states
like Cuba.

The plan never got off the ground. Ms. Bruguera and some 50 like-minded
Cubans were arrested before the event could take place. Some, like
journalist Reinaldo Escobar, husband of prominent dissident blogger
Yoani Sánchez, were stopped by state security before they could leave
their homes.

Two days later, Ms. Bruguera was arrested (again) along with several
other dissidents after they went to a jail demanding the release of
government opponents rounded up in the earlier crackdown.

Critics of the Obama administration's opening to Cuba were quick to
declare that the government's heavy-handed response to the planned event
shows the futility of the White House decision. Nothing has changed in
Cuba, they declared. Mr. Obama should have secured a "guarantee" of free
speech before making the opening to Cuba instead of giving the Cubans
something for nothing — i.e., diplomatic recognition without some
reciprocal promise of better behavior.

In the first place, seeking such an exchange would have been a
non-starter. Cuba's rulers would never make a deal that requires changes
in domestic policy — particularly the police state tactics that ensure
the regime's survival — in return for diplomatic recognition.

Second, the crackdown would have taken place regardless of any foregoing
action by the United States. Such crackdowns occur with disgusting
regularity, regardless of what other nations say. (Shamefully, most
don't say anything, except for the U.S. State Department. Why do other
democratic nations in the region find it so hard to call out the Cuban
government for human rights violations?)

Third, did anyone believe that diplomatic recognition would change the
Cuban state's behavior overnight? This is a regime that knows no other
way short of brute force — intimidation, arrests, imprisonment, "acts of
repudiation" and so forth — to enforce its will when it faces a
challenge from within. That's not going to change from one day to the next.

The gamble made by Mr. Obama, as we called it at the time, is that
diplomatic engagement would, over time, prove more effective in bringing
change to Cuba than the tactic of isolation, which plainly hasn't
worked. It's far too early to call it a failed experiment, but clearly
Cuba failed its first test.

Source: Repression in Cuba | The Miami Herald -
http://www.miamiherald.com/opinion/op-ed/article5356896.html