From: hallam@zeus02.desy.de (Phillip M. Hallam-Baker)
Subject: Re: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Reply-To: hallam@zeus02.desy.de
Organization: DESY ZEUS Central Data Acquisition
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 12:14:49 GMT

In article <2A704ECA.24545@noiro.acs.uci.edu>,
rravelo@asturias.acs.uci.edu (Ray Ravelo) writes:

|>In article <9207240702.AA06415@tba.msi.cornell.edu>
|>harelb@math.cornell.edu (Harel Barzilai) writes:
|>
|> [all the stuff deleted to save band and spare our readers ....]
|>
|> As always, the radicals get some correct information to try to
|>justify
|> the failures and crimes of totalitarian/communist regimes like
|>Castro's.
|> 
|> It's true that the US always had imperialistic designs on Cuba and
|>may
|> even still have it, but that's not justification to keep the present
|> regime in Cuba.

But equaly there are much worse regimes about.

The US embargo of Cuba is self defeating because the Cuban people hate
the US more than they hate Castro. Sanctions are not so much an
ecconomic weapon as a psychological weapon. The (white) South Africans
had a self image as being a part of Western civilisation. When Western
Civilisation rejected them they collapsed. In this respect the sporting
boycott was the most effective sanction against them. When it became
clear that the previous political support from the Republican and
Conservative parties in it's major trading partners was comming to and
end (they were no longer of use in the cold war), the National Party
surrendered.

The psychological weapon can work the other way. War creates a unity
within a country which makes the deposition of its leaders impossible.
Hopes for the removal in a coup d'etat of Castro, or indeed Saddam are
mere wishfull thinking, Hitler and Stalin were far worse tyrants yet
they were permitted to continue in power because they could not be
removed without certain defeat. Sanctions continued after a military
campaign has failed are entirely futile. They merely continue the
mindset of the state of war without causing significant logistical
problems for the power elite. 

We have already seen how the Cambodian government was abe to continue in
power while deliberately murdering almost a third of it's population.
The conclusion one must draw from this is that witholding medical aid
and food is not a sufficient sanction to bring about the downfall of a
government.

The anaysis for a resumption of hostilities is similar. Anything less
than a full invasion by allied forces in which Baghdad is captured will
not cause the removal of Saddam. Certainly any plan involving dropping
additional bombs on Iraq will have no effect other than uniting the
Iraqui people against the US and provide further demonstration of Bush's
inability to remove Saddam.


Once military sanctions have been applied all other sanctions are
futile. Iraq might well have withdrawn from Kewait under ecconomic
sanctions and the threat of military action. Even if the withdrawal
offered prior to the ground offensive had been accepted, Saddam would
have faced much more grave internal pressures. Instead he was given the
honour of battle which has made him invulnerable.


|> Most countries ignored and are still ignoring the US embargo against Cuba. 
|> The lack of FREEDOM and foodstuff in Cuba are due to the failures of yet
|> another communist regime, nothing more.

The problem is that this analysis is insufficient. You fail to take
account of the fact the the people of Cuba have rather lower
expectations (if not aspirations) in these areas. If you are identifying
Cuba as an area where there are human rights and ecconomic problems then
you are correct. However if you are trying to assert that these problems
may spark a revolution you are quite wrong. Since the effect of a policy
can be the only justification for it it follows that US sanctions
against Cuba should be ended. This is not to say that Latin American
sanctions may not have an effect.

As for likely change in Cuba. Most Cubans seem to expect some quiet
change after the Maximum Leader has disappeared. Considering the recent
changes in Eastern Europe, the countries where the Democratic process
has become most secure are those where the transition has been least
traumatic. Thus I would assert that a violent overthrow of Castro is not
desirable in the long term except in extreemis. Were he to suddenly
stage a Tienamen massacre this would change. This is to say the least
rather unlikely, not least because of the presence of the US occupying
part of the island.


Phill Hallam-Baker