William Blum, the veteran critic of American imperialism, has an interesting piece on the latest issue of his Anti-Empire Report, no. 147, in which he takes apart American accusations that Cuba is a dictatorship. It’s one that’s been repeatedly frequently over the past several days in the reporting of Fidel Castro’s death. Jeremy Corbyn also caught some of the flak, because he gave tribute to Castro without condemning him, or at least, not condemning as much as the Tories wanted. And by Tories I also mean the Lib Dems and Blairites. They are Tories in that they have swallowed Thatcherism and are determined to preserve free markets and the privileges and bloated profits of the elite, and the poverty and creeping enslavement of the poor.
Blum takes the principal accusations directed at Cuba to support the Right’s denunciation of it as a dictatorship – that it does not have a free press, hold free elections and locks up dissidents, and shows the hypocrisy behind them. In each case, America does precisely the same thing. Or else, if didn’t, American interests would quickly pour in to overthrow the system and the benefits it has conferred on the Cuban people in favour of turning it into an American vassal. Here’s the article:
Cuba, Fidel, Socialism … Hasta la victoria siempre!
The most frequent comment I’ve read in the mainstream media concerning Fidel Castro’s death is that he was a “dictator”; almost every heading bore that word. Since the 1959 revolution, the American mainstream media has routinely referred to Cuba as a dictatorship. But just what does Cuba do or lack that makes it a dictatorship?
No “free press”? Apart from the question of how free Western media is (see the preceding essays), if that’s to be the standard, what would happen if Cuba announced that from now on anyone in the country could own any kind of media? How long would it be before CIA money – secret and unlimited CIA money financing all kinds of fronts in Cuba – would own or control almost all the media worth owning or controlling?
Is it “free elections” that Cuba lacks? They regularly have elections at municipal, regional and national levels. They do not have direct election of the president, but neither do Germany or the United Kingdom and many other countries. The Cuban president is chosen by the parliament, The National Assembly of People’s Power. Money plays virtually no role in these elections; neither does party politics, including the Communist Party, since all candidates run as individuals. Again, what is the standard by which Cuban elections are to be judged? Is it that they don’t have private corporations to pour in a billion dollars? Most Americans, if they gave it any thought, might find it difficult to even imagine what a free and democratic election, without great concentrations of corporate money, would look like, or how it would operate. Would Ralph Nader finally be able to get on all 50 state ballots, take part in national television debates, and be able to match the two monopoly parties in media advertising? If that were the case, I think he’d probably win; which is why it’s not the case.
Or perhaps what Cuba lacks is our marvelous “electoral college” system, where the presidential candidate with the most votes is not necessarily the winner. Did we need the latest example of this travesty of democracy to convince us to finally get rid of it? If we really think this system is a good example of democracy why don’t we use it for local and state elections as well?
Is Cuba a dictatorship because it arrests dissidents? Many thousands of anti-war and other protesters have been arrested in the United States in recent years, as in every period in American history. During the Occupy Movement of five years ago more than 7,000 people were arrested, many beaten by police and mistreated while in custody. And remember: The United States is to the Cuban government like al Qaeda is to Washington, only much more powerful and much closer; virtually without exception, Cuban dissidents have been financed by and aided in other ways by the United States.
Would Washington ignore a group of Americans receiving funds from al Qaeda and engaging in repeated meetings with known members of that organization? In recent years the United States has arrested a great many people in the US and abroad solely on the basis of alleged ties to al Qaeda, with a lot less evidence to go by than Cuba has had with its dissidents’ ties to the United States. Virtually all of Cuba’s “political prisoners” are such dissidents. While others may call Cuba’s security policies dictatorship, I call it self-defense.
The original article is at: https://williamblum.org/aer/read/147
Go and read it for other insights from one of the most incisive critics of the brutality of American foreign policy.
Tags: al-Qaeda, Anti-Empire Report, CIA, Conservatives, Corporate Power, Dictatorship, Dissidents, Electoral College, Fidel Castro, Free Elections, Free Press, Jeremy Corbyn, Lib-Dems, Margaret Thatcher, Media, Occupy Movement, Political Prisoners, Protestors, Ralph Nader, the Poor, tony blair, Washington, William Blum