      |
|
|
 |
|
« Back to Is There Hope for Havana? main page    Transcript for: Is There Hope for Havana?transcript709.html ANNOUNCER: Brought to you in part by ADM, feeding the world is thebiggest challenge of the new century, which is why ADM promotessatellite technology to help the American farmer be even moreproductive. ADM, supermarket to the world. Additional funding isprovided by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, theLynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the United States-JapanFoundation, and the Donner Canadian Foundation. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Hello, I'm Ben Wattenberg. This week on Think Tankwe look at Cuba. Relationships between Cuba and the United States arewarming up from frigid to cold. Does this signify a warming trend? Isthere more to come? Joining us to sort through the conflict and theconsensus are Georgie Anne Geyer, syndicated columnist and author ofGuerilla Prince, The Untold Story of Fidel Castro; Frank Calzon,formerly of Freedom House, now the executive director of the Centerfor a Free Cuba; William LeoGrande, professor of political science atAmerican University, and author of, Our Own Backyard: The UnitedStates and Central America 1977 to 1992; and Eusebio Mujal-Leon,chairman of the government department at Georgetown University. Thetopic before the house, is there hope for Havana, this week on ThinkTank. (Musical break.) MR. WATTENBERG: Cuba lies only 90 miles off the coast of theUnited States. In 1898, in the Spanish American War, the UnitedStates helped Cuba defeat her Imperial guardian, Spain. It was theconflict that made Theodore Roosevelt famous. In 1952, ananti-Communist Cuban army colonel Fulgencia Batista tightly alignedwith the United States government seized power. A counter-revolutionsprung up led by a young revolutionary named Fidel Castro. Fortyyears ago this year, in 1959, Castro's revolution was successful.Castro turned Cuba into a socialist dictatorship and cemented tieswith the Soviet Union, America's Cold War adversary. Privateindustry, including many American firms was nationalized. The UnitedStates began an economic embargo. In an attempt to oust Castro in1961, the CIA equipped a rag-tag army of Cuban exiles and landed itdisastrously on the shores of Cuba at the Bay of Pigs. The followingyear, the Soviets began building missile bases in Cuba, leading tothe Cuban missile crisis of 1962. Over the years, Castro attempted toexport his communist revolution to other states in Latin America.Today, Fidel Castro is still in power, the longest continuouslyruling head of any nation. Although the Cold War is over, relationsbetween America and Havana remain tense. In January of 1998, the Popevisited Cuba and called on the United States to lift its embargo. Andin January of 1999, President Clinton began to ease the embargo,allowing money, food and mail to go to Cuba. Lady, gentlemen, thankyou for joining us. Gigi, what is President Clinton up to? What didthis new order do? MS. GEYER: Well, I think they did about the right thing by mycalculations, Ben. It was a slow, gradual opening up the ability forCuban Americans and others to send more money to their familiesthere, supposedly to open mail, to open more telephone lines, withoutgoing into lifting of the embargo, which the president can't dowithout an act of Congress, because of Helms-Burton. And also we haveto realize there's a lot of mirrors and mists here, because theembargo really doesn't stop Fidel from buying anywhere in the world.It just stops him from buying in the United States. And he has nomoney. So, this was about timed right. MR. WATTENBERG: So this was an executive order, not an act ofCongress. It was just the president on his own. MS. GEYER: No. An act of Congress would be Helms-Burton. MR. WATTENBERG: Frank, what do you think of it? MR. CALZON: Well, I think the president is basically responding toa very active lobby that's been spending about a million and a halfdollars a year to promote the lifting of the sanctions in Washington. MR. WATTENBERG: Who makes up that lobby? MR. CALZON: Well, there's a number of, shall we say, progressivefoundations, one of them is the ARCA Foundation. They support anumber of programs. They all have one thing in common, they areagainst the sanctions. One important thing to keep in mind that youmentioned in the introduction is that it is true that the Holy Fatherasked for the sanctions to be lifted. The church is against allembargoes, everywhere in the world. But the Pope also called forCastro to open up to the world, to permit the growth of civil societyin Cuba, to allow the church a role in Cuban society. And up to now,the answer has been very negative on Cuba's part. MR. WATTENBERG: By Castro. MR. CALZON: By Castro. MR. WATTENBERG: Bill LeoGrande, how do you think this Clintoninitiative is going to work? MR. LeoGRANDE: Well, I don't think it actually amounts to verymuch. The changes that have been made in existing policy arerelatively small. They're going to apply to relatively few people.Now, I think more contact is better, but part of what the presidentwas doing here was to give a little bit as a way of blocking thecreation of a bipartisan congressional commission or committee toreview the entire range of policies. MR. WATTENBERG: You have been, over the years, in favor of liftingthe embargo; is that right? MR. LeoGRANDE: I have. It seems to me that we've been trying nowfor 30 years to bring down Fidel Castro with economic sanctions, andit hasn't worked. MR. WATTENBERG: Forty. MR. LeoGRANDE: Forty, excuse me. That's right, 40 years. MR. WATTENBERG: Time flies when you're having fun. Sam, what doyou think? MR. MUJAL-LEON: Well, you know, I think that the -- I don't thinkthat there's that much to the administration's initiative. I agreewith Bill in the sense that I think there's a tinkering at the edges.There's an effort to encourage people-to-people contact. There's aneffort to try and loosen. But I think that the administration isbounded by, on the one hand, its own timidity. It's bounded bydomestic pressure groups, and it's also bounded by the fact thatthere's very little evidence at all that a year after the papal visitthere has been any opening in Cuba whatsoever. So, I think that theadministration's response to that was to make an effort to open, butrecognizing fully well that there are very clear and close margins. MR. WATTENBERG: Here you have, though, a very unique personalityin Fidel Castro, 40 years in power. You wrote a biography of him,what do you make of him then and now? MS. GEYER: I also interviewed him four or five times, and spent alot of time with him in Cuba some years ago. You've got to realizethat Fidel Castro is never going to change. You know, my good liberalfriends say, oh, if we only did this, Fidel would do that. You've gotto drop that idea, because even if -- I think the people who despisehim, but who know him say, he's not going to change, Ben. It's like Ihave a wonderful cat, but my cat is never going to bark. MR. WATTENBERG: Hard-wired. MS. GEYER: And Fidel Castro is going to stay in power, and he's aMachiavellian par excellence. He's going to play everybody off. Andso this should be looked upon as a gesture to see what he does. Hewon't accept it anyway, but it's good to make the gesture. MR. CALZON: I would say that there have been many gestures before.I mean, those who say that by simply lifting the embargo things willchange in Cuba, I think underestimate Fidel Castro. He's not a newkid on the block. He's not going to permit American investments toundermine his revolution. Every time the United States has tried todo something, his response has basically been to remain, stay put,and wait for the next concession from the United States. A couple ofyears ago when the administration allowed the opening of bureaus, thepress bureaus in Cuba, the president said, all right, 10 Americanmedia companies can go to Cuba. Since then, Castro has allowed two.One is CNN and the other is AP, recently. CNN is banned to the Cubanpeople. If a Cuban tries to set up an antenna to watch CNN, he goesto prison. MR. WATTENBERG: Bill. MR. LeoGRANDE: We shouldn't underestimate how much change hasactually gone on in the economy, and that's important. It is truethat Castro has been following the China model of keeping a tighthand on the political front. But with the collapse of the SovietUnion, Cuba now, as a small export oriented economy, has to trade inthe world market, and the dollar has become, in some ways, moreimportant in Cuba as a currency than the peso has. That has created adynamic in Cuban civil society which Fidel Castro can't control. Hetalks about it all the time in his speeches about how much hedislikes it, how upset he is about it. But they are being forced,slowly but surely, towards a market oriented economy. MR. CALZON: He controls that, because in the last two years, 30percent, there's now 30 percent less self-employed Cubans than therewere before. So, the concessions that he has made until now are thebasis of outside pressure, basically the embargo and the sanctions.But the minute that you lift the sanctions, then there will not beany changes. MR. LeoGRANDE: It seems to me that you're looking at two processesthat are very clear, but they're very different. On the one hand, andI would agree, I think there are very proud economic and socialtransformations that are taking place in Cuba. The state no longercontrols the economy and no longer controls the society the way thatit did 20 years ago. There is now criminality. There is now athriving underground economy. And the dollar is, in fact, king of theeconomy. At the same time, you have someone that politically cannotbe displaced. And I think that what we're doing is, we're seeing amovie that is frozen in time, and until Castro passes from the scene,you're not going to be able to see your transformation. MR. WATTENBERG: Let me ask a question, there's a perennialargument going on in Washington about embargoes. One is, embargoesnever work. People say embargoes never work, and they cite all kindsof evidence, it's a sin, it's this, it's that. On the other hand, youhave people like Fidel Castro and Saddam Hussein, to name two thatcome to mind right away, saying, stop this embargo, you're hurtingthe women, you're hurting the children. If it doesn't help, if itdoesn't put pressure on these administrations, why do they sobitterly complain about it? MS. GEYER: Ben, it has put pressure on Castro. It's helped bringhim, plus his own weaknesses and the economy, down to where he istoday with Cuba at rock bottom. And it used to be one of the topthree countries in the hemisphere. It's now down there with Haiti.But the thing about -- MR. WATTENBERG: You approve of the embargo over the years? MS. GEYER: I do. MR. WATTENBERG: Why? MS. GEYER: Because he can buy anything he wants anywhere in theworld. He's go no money, it's not the embargo. MR. WATTENBERG: Let's go back to the first causes. Why, certainlyafter the end of the Cold War are we still -- people ask, are we sosort of fixed in our opposition to the Castro regime? MS. GEYER: Well, because it's an undesirable regime on ourborders. We've had the embargo, it's been successful. There's notreally much reason to lift it. He can do business with anyone. Youknow, I'd like to ask Eusebio about these 'businesses' that are allgoing down there. I keep looking for foreign investment there, and Ifind almost none. It's almost like another mythology. MR. MUJAL-LEON: Well, I don't think there is a lot of investment.I think the investment is concentrated in tourism. It's concentratedSharit (sp), the Canadian company in the nickel sector. It's ratherlimited, and it's very deliberately, I think, organized in a waythat's limited. But, you know, I want to come back to your question.You can make an argument, I think on at least three levels, in favorof the embargo, or of some type of embargo. I think that there is amoral argument that has to do with the fact that there are certainregimes that fall outside the boundaries of civilized behavior in howthey relate to their subjects. I think there are foreign policyarguments, because I don't believe in an argument that's based onsort of political geometry. You're doing it with China, and thus youhave to do it with Cuba. You're doing it with China for a variety ofreasons, not least that the Chinese have, in fact, over the last 15years, embarked on very ambitious and profound market reforms thathave no correlate in Cuba. MR. WATTENBERG: China is a potential and plausible threat to theUnited States. MR. MUJAL-LEON: Absolutely. MR. WATTENBERG: And we have some very good reasons to try to makenice if we can. MR. MUJAL-LEON: Right, exactly. And I think there's a thirdreason, which has to do -- and here's where I think the debate needsto be joined and isn't very often joined in this country, and that ison the question of democratization. In other words, what kind ofstratagem, to what degree can sanctions contribute todemocratization? And to flip it on the other side, to what degreedoes the lifting of sanctions contribute to democratization? And theconcern that I have is more on that side rather than on sort of afirm adherence or an insistence on the question of sanctions, becauseI could well envision a situation where a lifting of sanctions insome broad way, in fact, helps consolidate and solidify a regime thatis presently in crisis. I think there's an argument which has noempirical foundation whatsoever that simply if you lift embargoes andif you trade and you have commerce, you are going to sweep before youall kinds of political structures. In fact, the case of China is awonderful case. You know, 23 years after the death of Mao, afterextraordinary economic transformations, the same group is inpolitical power. They may be in crisis. There may be all kinds ofproblems. But the same group stays in power. MR. LeoGRANDE: Well, I think Fidel Castro is going to be in poweruntil he dies, in my judgment, whether there's a U.S. embargo orwhether there isn't a U.S. embargo. I don't think it actually makesany difference. We can't talk about why we have an embargo withouttalking about domestic American politics, it seems to me. CubanAmericans have, for the most part, not unanimously, but for the mostpart, been in favor of maintaining sanctions against the Castroregime, and they are strategically located on Florida and in NewJersey, which are important electoral states, and they've become animportant factor in domestic American politics. They're a smallgroup, but they have an intense interest in this issue. They are wellorganized. And in American politics a well-organized, small group ofpeople is generally going to win a policy debate against a largegroup of people who don't really care about an issue. MR. WATTENBERG: There is another argument. We heard a lot about itduring the Cold War and it's always present in American foreignpolicy, which is should our foreign policy be in the Americaninterest or in the interest of Americans. And, these Cubans who areliving -- Cuban Americans, citizens who vote who are living, as yousay, particularly in Florida, I guess there's a large community inNew Jersey, that they do have a vote, they are American citizens.They have a right to lobby and make their case to their government. MR. LeoGRANDE: Absolutely they do. MR. WATTENBERG: And we see this, we see it with the Israeli lobby,we see it with the Greek lobby. A whole part of the Cold War had todo with the lobbies of the so-called captive nations. And, I thinkappropriately so. This is a universal nation, and you have to blendthe national interest with the interest of Americans. The Americaninterest and the interest of Americans is sort of a blend. You don'tagree with that? MS. GEYER: No, I don't agree with that at all, Ben. We're becominga country where group rights, where various groups with intereststhat often are antithetical, completely, to the interest of thenation as a whole, where these groups are dominating foreign policy.And they're not, for instance, the Cuban Americans, whom I have greatrespect for, they're not dominating it through the vote, they'redominating it through very, very good campaign contributions tomembers of Congress. And through a lot of threats. MR. WATTENBERG: I'm shocked. MS. GEYER: No, it's not a nice process. MR. WATTENBERG: Frank, will you defend this? MR. CALZON: I'm always surprised when some of my friends incampaign community talk about the role of Cuban Americans on policy,nobody mentions the Black Caucus or some other elements. But, in theCuban case, in the Cuban debate there is something even more -- MR. WATTENBERG: The Black Caucus is not principally engaged inforeign policy, it's engaged in domestic policy. They have gotteninvolved in African policy a little bit, but basically -- MR. CALZON: The Black Caucus played a most significant role inU.S. policy toward Haiti, in which American lives are put at risk,and in support of sanctions against South Africa. But, putting thataside, there is another very narrow interest, that has very little todo with national interests, and that's corporate interests. Those aresome of the folks who want to trade with Qaddafi, with SaddamHussein, and believe me the debate on Cuba has very little to do withCuba. The debate on lifting sanctions on Cuba has to do with USAengaged in these business corporate, narrow corporate interests, whosee Cuba as a way of opening trade -- MR. WATTENBERG: Isn't that what Lennon said, that capitalistswould sell the communists the rope to hang the capitalists, right? MR. CALZON: Something like that. MR. WATTENBERG: Or would sell most any damn thing. MR. CALZON: So the idea is to lift the sanctions against Cuba, asa way of then moving on to lift the sanctions against Qaddafi andagainst Saddam Hussein. MR. WATTENBERG: In the interest, you are saying, of the bottomline, of profit. MR. CALZON: That's right. MR. WATTENBERG: That they don't care who it goes to -- MR. CALZON: And that has very little to do with American boysbeing sent somewhere to kill and getting killed. And that's theanswer to your first question, that you said, why embargoes? Well,when the president has to look at a problem in the outside world, hecould send the Marines in, he could make a speech, he could putsanctions in place, and I think the idea of saying sanctions in allcases doesn't make sense. It's a way of denying the United States anopportunity of using that tool. The sanctions against Castro are notthere for philosophical reasons, they are there as the negotiatingtool. If Castro is willing to give something in return, then you liftthe sanctions. MR. WATTENBERG: You said the magic word again, Castro. What sortof a -- just so we bring people up to date, and you say there havebeen many changes, Sam. What sort of a regime is it in Cuba today?What is it that American find so offensive? MR. CALZON: I think what is so objectionable to some Americans isthat when you look of the policy of engagement, what do you get? Thesanctions on one side, engagement in the other, well, they Cherit(sp) Mining Company pays Castro $9500 per year per worker. Then thoseworkers get paid $15 per month. That's what you would have if youlift the sanctions. MS. GEYER: I think that's -- what Frank just said, that is themost important thing. His people are serfs, these companies comehere, they think they're -- MR. WATTENBERG: Are serfs? MS. GEYER: Well, they're serfs of the manor house, he gives themto foreign companies, who are not making money, incidentally, justlike they're not making money in China and Russia, these are our bigcorporations. He gives them like serfs, and they pay -- companies payhim in dollars, he pays the serfs $15 a month in pesos, which areworthless. I mean, this is a regime in the 20th Century, going intothe 21st Century? MR. LeoGRANDE: That's a good example of the kind of economiccontradictions that the regime is running into as it begins to openitself up economically, internationally. And, in fact, there havebeen a couple of cases, my understanding is, of companies that havecome in and set up in the new free trade zone, which have beenallowed to begin to pay workers directly. So there's internalpressures for them to try and keep the segmentation between thedomestic,peso, centrally planned economy, and the areas of theeconomy that are having to deal with the world market, and thereforehaving to begin to adopt a kind of market discipline. MR. CALZON: Yes, but the bottom line is that the policy ofengagement that the Canadians and others have, strengthen thegovernment, the trade that they have -- the military are in charge ofmost of these companies. This is not free trade with the Cubanpeople, this is free trade with the Cuban government, with the Cubanmilitary. MR. LeoGRANDE: I think the more the economy opens up and the morethe economy is outside the command of the government, and the morethat the centralized planned economy is eroded at the margins bymarket mechanism, the harder it is for the regime over the long runto maintain political control. MR. WATTENBERG: Let me go back to something. We are still talkingabout a one man, one country situation. I mean, this is not one manone vote, this is one man one country. Suppose there were freeelections in Cuba? MS. GEYER: I think you've got to be careful, because I don't likeFidel Castro, but I respect his charismatic hold over he Cubanpeople. And when I was there and watched him in the Plaza de laRevolucion, the 26th of July, where 200,000 people standing there for9 hours and this incredible exchange of power between them, I'venever seen it. It was like Hitler, Mussolini. And there's still thatfeeling, which I -- at least from what I hear from all of my sources,that he is the revolutionary leader,despite all the awful mistakes,and awful things he's done. And that kind of passive attention, thattie is very scary to me. But, I believe it's still there. MR. MUJAL-LEON: I think one thing you can safely say over timethough is that his support has probably been declining because of theperformance, the economic performance of the regime since thecollapse of the Soviet Union. MR. CALZON: I don't think you see those rallies anymore. MS. GEYER: No, that's true. MR. CALZON: I think now the rallies are by invitation only. Now,there are just a few thousand people inside a courtyard. The dayswhen there were a half-a-million people in the plaza are long gone. MR. WATTENBERG: It's like Mayor Daley used to say, get me a rulycrowd. Let's go around the room, we're about out of time, and give mein a short capsule what the prospects for Cuba are in the next 10years. Sam? MR. MUJAL-LEON: I think that so long as Castro is alive there willnot be any meaningful political change in Cuba. And I think so longas there is no meaningful political change, or significantliberalization, the chances that there will be any evolution inAmerican policy are also very dim. I think that once Castro dies, oneshould not assume that there is going to be a dramatictransformation. What I would expect is something more on the order,perhaps as he is in the very declining moments of his life, perhaps amilitary coup, because I think in fact although it's described as aCommunist regime, and Fidel is described as a Communist he reallyisn't. The Communist party is very weak. The only institution thatfunctions in Cuba is the military. I think there will be a de factomilitary coup, and then there will be a sorting out within themilitary as to what path they take after the Castro period. MR. WATTENBERG: Bill, you agree? MR. LeoGRANDE: I think the biggest change over the next 10 yearsis going to continue to be the changes in the economy. I don't thinkit's possible for Castro to insulate the domestic economy from theinternational economy. And so I think you're going to gradually seethe Cuban economy have to operate by market discipline. And so it isgoing to become a capitalist economy, whether Fidel Castro likes itor not. MR. WATTENBERG: Frank. MR. CALZON: Well, that is based on the assumption that Castrocares whether the Cuban people can eat every day, or have three mealsa day. And 40 years have shown that he cares about remaining inpower indefinitely, whether the economy is in shambles or not, hisfirst priority is to remain in power. I think as long as the UnitedStates policy for this hemisphere is a promotion of human rights anddemocracy, in Chile, in Haiti, in Central America, I don't see anychances of real change in Washington, as long as there's no politicalopening in Havana. MR. WATTENBERG: Gigi? MS. GEYER: Well, people constantly ask, what after Fidel? What isthe succession going to be? Well, he's named his brother Raoul as hissuccessor, but no one takes that seriously, because Raoul is whatthey say in Spanish antipatico, he's really very, very unpleasantcompared to simpatico. But, I always remember what Fidel said aboutfour years ago in a Time Magazine interview. The Time editors inHavana, they said, what will happen after you are gone, to Cuba? Andhis exact words were, I don't care what happens to Cuba after I'mgone. And he doesn't. He only cares about his own power. And that'sthe man that is -- when his death comes, it is going to open a lot ofpeople's eyes to what he was really doing all these 40 years. MR. WATTENBERG: Thank you, Gigi Geyer, William LeoGrande, FrankCalzon, and Eusebio Mujal-Leon. And thank you, for Think Tank, I'mBen Wattenberg. ANNOUNCER: We at Think Tank depend on your views to make our showbetter. Please, send your questions and comments to New River Media,1150 Seventeenth Street, Northwest, Washington, D.C. 20036, or emailus at thinktank@pbs.org. To learn more about Think Tank, visit PBSOnline at www.pbs.org. And please let us know where you watch ThinkTank. (Musical break.) ANNOUNCER: This has been a production of BJW Incorporated, inassociation with New River Media, which are solely responsible forits content. Brought to you in part by ADM. Feeding the world is thebiggest challenge of the new century, which is by ADM promotessatellite technology to help the American farmer be even moreproductive. ADM, supermarket to the world. Additional funding isprovided by the John M. Olin Foundation, the Lilly Endowment, theLynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. (End of program.) Back to top  Think Tank is made possible by generous support from the Smith Richardson Foundation, the Bernard and Irene Schwartz Foundation, the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation, the John M. Olin Foundation, the Donner Canadian Foundation, the Dodge Jones Foundation, and Pfizer, Inc. ©Copyright Think Tank. All rights reserved. 
  Web development by Bean Creative. |