44 years of Castro's iron fist - Panel of Cuba experts analyze island nation under Fidel's rule
worldnetdaily.com
Posted: February 22, 2003 1:00 a.m. Eastern Editor's note: Last month marked the 44th year of Fidel Castro's dictatorial rule of Cuba. To discuss this anniversary and prospects for change in Cuba are Agustin Blazquez, a documentarian of Communist Cuba whose recently released "Covering Cuba 3: Elian," which is available through www.CubaCollectibles.com; Enrique Encinosa, a historian and news editor of WAQI radio in Miami, whose books include "Cuba: The Unfinished Revolution"; Servando Gonzalez, author of "The Secret Fidel Castro: Deconstructing the Symbol" and most recently, "The Nuclear Deception: Nikita Khrushchev and the Cuban Missile Crisis"; and Juan Lopez, a political science professor at the University of Illinois and author of the recently released "Democracy Delayed: The Case of Castro's Cuba."
By Myles Kantor
Question: On Jan. 8, 1959, Fidel Castro entered Havana after Fulgencio Batista left Cuba for the Dominican Republic. What's your response to the claim that Castro's occupancy of power 44 years later reflects popular support? Ted Turner, for instance, claimed at the Harvard Law School Forum in March 2001 that "most of the people that are still in Cuba like him."
BLAZQUEZ: What I have learned from sources inside Cuba is that 90 percent of the general population despise the regime. The rest is part of Castro's privileged ruling elite who, for personal economic and security reasons, are afraid of the consequences inherent in the collapse of the regime. His longevity is not a factor of popular support. It is a factor of his highly repressive totalitarian machinery that controls all aspects of life in Cuba. Since the law forbids freedom of speech and association, the democratic opposition forces in Cuba are unable to carry their message to the rest of the population or outside Cuba without incurring significant risk.
Thus there is a generalized lack of confidence that any opposition actions can bring about change. Contributing to the maintenance of the status quo is the lack of support from outside Cuba. The general ignorance of the American public and the rest of the world of the real Cuban situation is due to the rampant misinformation distributed by the left-wing-controlled mainstream news media. It generates insensitivity and a lack of international solidarity for the cause of the liberation of Cuba. Therefore, it is a serious roadblock to freedom.
ENCINOSA: If Castro has so much popular support as Ted Turner claims, why doesn't he allow opposition political parties and free elections? The facts indicate he has no popular support but maintains power based on repression and fear. Over 15,000 Cubans have been executed by firing squads, thousands more have died at sea escaping, tens of thousands have been guests of his concentration camps and almost 2 million – out of 11 million – have escaped to exile.
GONZALEZ: Though it is impossible to know the extent of support for Castro – opinion polls in totalitarian countries are pretty unreliable – I don't think that Cubans in Cuba like Castro. Though it is true that in the very first months of the popular revolution – of which Castro was just one of its many leaders – the majority of the people supported it, as soon as Castro managed to get total control this support began to diminish. Though in the last couple of years the dislike of the Cuban people for Castro is more and more evident, and they express it more openly, for many years they feared repression and disguised their feelings as best as they could. But, in several opportunities, Cubans have expressed their anti-Castro feelings by voting with their feet. This was evidenced when Castro opened the gates in the port of Camarioca in September of 1965 and again during the Mariel boatlift of 1980, when close to 125,000 Cubans precipitously escaped from Castro's proletarian paradise. I am convinced that if tomorrow Castro would open the gates again, in less than six months no less than half of the Cubans would escape from the island.
There is, however, at least one kernel of truth in Turner's words. In 44 years of Castro's tyrannical rule, no major anti-government rebellion has occurred. Save for an initial strong opposition, only a relatively minor incident in the summer of 1994, the so-called Habanazo riots, has been reported. Therefore, even if Cubans don't like Castro, it seems that they don't hate the tyrant enough to risk their lives trying to get rid of him.
Contrary to common belief, liberation from Castro's tyranny is not a difficult thing to accomplish, but is has a high price. To do it, Cubans don't need freedom of association or civil liberties. They don't even need guns. They only need to supply their blood. A spontaneous rebellion would force the Castro regime to bring tanks to Havana's streets and would end in several thousand Cubans massacred by Castro's army. This would destroy the myth of Castro's popularity and inflict a mortal blow to the tyranny. Unfortunately, Cubans obviously value life more than freedom, and they are not willing to pay the ultimate price for it.
In his much-quoted dictum, "Give me liberty or give me death," Patrick Henry expressed it brilliantly. People who value life above freedom sooner or later will become slaves. Unfortunately, this seems to be the case of the Cuban people.
LOPEZ: Under dictatorships, it is not possible to conduct a reliable public opinion survey to determine what percentage of the population supports the dictatorship. However, there are various indirect measures to assess the degree of support for the Castro government among citizens in the island. These proxies suggest that the support for the Cuban government is very low. Whenever the opportunity to leave Cuba has come up, as in 1980 with the Mariel episode and with the rafters in 1994, there have been endless streams of people wanting to get out. Only force has put an end to the migrations. Indicators of social anomie, like high rates of suicide and alcoholism, repeated spontaneous protests (for example, to complain about poor services and breakdowns in the supply of basic necessities), and small-scale strikes (to demand unpaid wages or for other reasons) are further evidence of discontent.
Then there are the facts that the dictatorship does not want free elections, suppresses free speech and freedom of association and is terrified of the possibility that mass protests could develop. Any government that is confident of enjoying majority support does not oppose free elections. Castro is even afraid of holding a referendum, as the Varela Project asks. It should be clear, for those who want to see, that mass mobilizations carried out by totalitarian regimes to orchestrate a facade of public support are just exercises in mass coercion. Many signs also indicate that there is considerable discontent with the regime among members of the Communist Party, the armed forces and other state institutions, for example, defections abroad, widespread corruption and even expressions of criticisms.
As for Ted Turner's comment, the most likely explanation is that he is a conscious supporter of the Castro dictatorship. No wonder some people refer to CNN as Castro's News Network. Evidence shows that CNN news reports are highly biased in favor of the Cuban government. Other possibilities are that Turner is an idiot or one of Castro's uninformed foreign dupes. But I think that the first explanation is more accurate.
...... worldnetdaily.com