By MARC R. MASFERRER
A month later, the euphoria in Miami and across the blogosphere that greeted the news that Cuba’s Fidel Castro was ill and had “temporarily” transferred power to dictator-in-waiting Raul Castro has has ceded to disappointment. Under Raul — a strongman as nasty, if not worse, as his big brother — the dictatorship is humming along, as repressive as ever. And there is little to suggest that a massive upheaval of Cuban society, before or after Fidel finally dies, is imminent.
In the long run, it is good that the facts on the ground since July 31 have tempered the initial excitement. If Cuba is ever to recover from its Castroite nightmare, all involved in that recovery, rebuilding and reconciliation, on and off the island, will need to have a clear-eyed view of the challenges before them. That includes the unfortunate reality that the Castro dictatorship, whether headed by Fidel, Raul or one of their cronies, is well entrenched, and it won’t surrender its power easily.
But that is no reason to lose hope, since it is hope and faith that Cuba and Cubans need most of at this moment.
History shows that time is not on the side of the dictators.
Since late 1989, when the Berlin Wall collapsed, dictatorship after dictatorship, of both the left and right, have fallen as the instinctive human drive for freedom has triumphed over tyranny. From Eastern Europe to Asia to Cuba’s backyard in Latin America, dictators have succumbed to either the bullet, i.e. Romania, or. more frequently, to the ballot box.
Circumstances varied by country, but as Costa Rican President Oscar Arias Sanchez wrote in the Miami Herald this week, why not Cuba?
“Today Cuba is the only exception in the great Latin American transformation toward liberty — the only country in the region to deny that democracy, no matter its strengths and weaknesses, is the historical destiny of humanity,” Arias wrote.
To think differently about Cuba, that aspirations for freedom are not shared by Cubans plays into the hands of the dictators. But more significantly, it gives credence to the outdated Cold War mentality that holds the best we can do is contain dictatorships, and not defeat them.
I held that mindset in college when I wrote for my senior thesis, “U.S.-Cuban Relations in the 1980s.” Researched and written in 1988-89, the paper lays out steps that might be taken towards a rapprochement. I am proud of the work, and it earned me an “A.”
But almost 19 years later, the paper’s fatal flaw is there for everyone to see: It concedes that there will always be a dictator in Havana, and thus is limited in its outlook. I dared not imagine, because of the Cold War and a cold-blooded realpolitik encouraged by my professor, something much better for Cuba.
For instance, I wrote: “Castro’s probable successors, like his brother Raul, are as pro-Soviet or more pro-Soviet than Fidel. Fidel’s death, though, undoubtedly will provide the United States and Cuba a limited opportunity to approach each other in ways untried before.”
History since has proven me wrong. Dictatorship is no nation’s destiny. It wasn’t Poland’s or Chile’s. And it doesn’t have to be Cuba’s.
Any sense of historical inevitability in Cuba will not by itself save the nation. History and human nature are on the side of freedom, but also required is for the Cuban people to rise up and fight for their liberty.
They must not cooperate with the dictatorship by spying on or harassing their neighbors.
They must reject the monarchical succession underway and demand they be heard.
They cannot just sit and wait to be free.
During the past month, such an uprising has been missing in Cuba, whether because of disunity among dissidents or fear, the dictatorship’s most valuable currency. The dictatorship is willing to spend whatever it takes to maintain its hold on power.
To be free, Cubans must fight that fear with faith — faith in their hopes and dreams for themselves and for their nation. History shows that, and not surrendering to tyranny, is the path to victory.
Recent Comments