“Fidel Castro controlled Cuba for nearly half a century. His rule was defined by defiance and dictatorship, brutal repression against dissidents and the management of an immoral American embargo.”

Antony, don’t you think that just as it would be wrong, as you rightly point out, to be unthinkingly supportive of Cuba, it’s equally wrong to be unthinkingly critical?

Surely you can agree that this quote somewhat exaggerates what has “defined” Castro’s Cuba for the last 50 years. Don’t you think there’s a few other things that defined his rule? Some of which are quite remarkably better than any other country? Education? Health? The overthrow of a far more brutal dictatorship? Foreign aid? I’m not saying that you shouldn’t mention the undeniable and unjustifiable repression but the picture you paint is a little inaccurate… No?

I agree with most what you’ve said Wombo. Particularly, I feel that just as it would be rather odd for to speak of the good features of US ‘democracy’ without mentioning the overwhelming non-democratic features, it’s kind of strange to speak about all the undemocratic features of Cuba without placing it in the broader contexts - the historical context, as well as the current global and latin american contexts. Further, we should distinguish ’support for Cuba’ from the unthinking, uncritical support that Antony is speaking about. Just as I would support, say, some things about the US, that doesn’t mean that I have uncritical or unthinking support for the US (far from it, I might add). Supporting some of the great achievements of Cuba does not automatically equate to uncritical, unthinking support for Cuba. (Actually, I thought Tim Anderson’s recent piece on Cuba was, on the most part, very thoughtful.)

Also, while i’m sure Wombo is right that there are various groups who emphasise the positive aspects of Cuba (although I know of many that focus more on criticising Cuba), I think it is still very unhelpful for Antony to pick a position he sees in a few of them and criticise “the Left” for holding this position. What the DSP thinks is different to what members of the Sydney intellectual left thinks which is different to what Solidarity thinks which is different from what parts of the Latin American community thinks. Criticising ‘the left’ is incredibly unhelpful and rather uninteresting - the phrase just lacks any content.

What I would like to see is more substantive and thoughtful debate between people like Antony and Tim. There seems to be some factual disagreement between the two authors and this should be easily sorted out. Also, there are some more general political arguments that could be debated in a more helpful way.

As you know Antony, I agree with most of the things you say but it’s only when we disagree that I feel like speaking up!

Thanks for the reply Wombo - it was helpful. I’m also looking forward to Antony’s book - from the bits i’ve heard about it sounds very interesting.

Cheers,
Mikey.

I will limit this to a short number of points for the moment (if need be, and time allows, I’ll return for more detail).

First, Mikey’s right - a lot of the left doesn’t support Cuba. (Personally, I’d say this is a bad thing, but many would, of course, disagree. Which is the point).

However (and I’ll point out that I’m a member of the DSP - and it’s been “Perspective”, not “Party” for a number of years now), there is a lot of support for Cuba outside of the ranks of the DSP.

Obviously you have the CPA, and the (ahem!) Sparts, but there is also a large, and very political, Latin American community who are extremely supportive of Cuba - with good reason, given what Cuba does in germs of international solidarity. There is also a strong base of support within the Greens (also for good reason! Cuba is the only country meeting the criteria for sustainable development - despite the US!) and even in the ALP.

So, while Antony has perhaps used broad brush-strokes, it’s not entirely unjustifiable.

Secondly, and more importantly, is the matter of Cuba itself. If by now you have decided that I’m a mindless Cuba-phile, feel free to tune out - but I’m hoping that a liberal view of the world such as yours could actually appreciate the complexity of the issue.

There are indeed problems with freedom of speech in Cuba, as there are with relation to bureaucracy, limits on democracy, corruption, and so on. Been there, seen it. But these must be seen alongside two extremely important things:

1. The objective limitations imposed on Cuba - through various US attacks (the blockade isn’t just a *bad thing* - it causes shortages, which in turn encourage bureaucracy, corruption and other anti-social behaviour). The unfortunate fact is that most (independent) critics of the problems in Cuba ARE on the US payroll. Which also makes it easy to dismiss them. But there are other reasons to do so. This point feeds into the second…

2. While SOME dissidents aren’t, in fact, bringing in the Greenbacks, those that aren’t tend to be overwhelmingly critical of not only the very real limitations on civil society in Cuba, but on the system as a whole. Not all, true, but even then there are qualifications to make.

Their critique needs to be contrasted directly with the criticism coming from pro-socialist, pro-revolution, and (mostly) pro-Fidel perspectives within Cuba - which are both more numerous, and much, much, more realistic and practical in approach, and are given open slather in the media, in communities, and in the democratic mechanisms that exist. Check out the content of many of the “Round Table” debates, or articles in Juventud Rebelde (the Communist Youth paper, of all things). Or the recent campaign on gay marriage led by Raul Castro’s daughter.

Thing is, though, they tend not to bother writing in English, what with their target audience being the Cuban people. By contrast, those that target an outside audience tend to have rather questionable intentions.

Unfortunately, whether Tim A has been casting baseless aspersions or not, this remains the reality of Cuba. And, given the current balance of power (and ideology) internationally, if you’re going to make genuine criticisms of Cuba, you really ought to balance that with the remarkable achievements Cuba has made *despite* such an overwhelmingly onslaught. To do less to basically lend support to the attacks on Cuba (without meaning here to make this a totally either-or situation).

Once again, try to think of this as a genuine overture to rethink the Cuban situation, rather than the intervention of a Cuba-phile. You don’t help Cuba by apologism for the limitations its society faces. But you also don’t help it by taking an idealistic position based on western liberal capitalist “democratic” definitions of what ‘freedom of speech” is that ignores the reality on the ground.

All that said (and I’ll avoid talking about RSF) I look forward to the book.

regards,

Wombo

I’ve gotta say, I was rather surprised by both the tone and content of this blog post. We can chat later about it in more detail, but right now I just thought I’d point out a few things you say which are really most problematic.

1. You conclude your blog entry with “The problem is, for me as a human being and journalist, many of the nations in my book commit gross human rights abuses and remaining silent is neither moral nor legitimate.” That’s a gross overstatement. There are plenty of “gross human rights abuses” that you have remained silent on. Choosing which to talk about and which to remain silent on is, unfortunately, a practical necessity imposed on us by the enormous number of human rights violations occurring today. I’m not going to condemn you for remaining silent on the human rights abuses in Russia, Colombia or Turkey (or relatively nice places like New Zealand for that matter). But you should probably be ready to defend the particular choices you made regarding which abuses to be silent on and which to campaign on.

2. From what I can see of the debate between you and Tim, you should treat it with more respect. I know for a fact that you are well intentioned and I’m sure it would be hurtful to have your intentions questioned the way Tim has. Nevertheless, I’m not surprised that he has such questions and they are ones that you should really respond to carefully and openly. I know you’re not funded by the US but it’s a relevant point that there are very similar campaigns to yours that are funded by the US. I am aware that Tim may have been making more categorical claims about your supposed links to the US in less public forums and that is pretty disgusting. I’m not trying to defend Tim Anderson. But from what I have read in this blog post and in the comments of the one you link to, Tim Anderson is asking questions that are both not surprising and easily answered.

3. You characterise the argument in Tim’s article as follows: “I visited many countries on an RSF list and therefore, by definition, my work is suspect and really an attempt to undermine the nations and individuals standing up to American aggression.” At least on the basis of the article you’ve quoted in your blog, that’s a pretty big mischaracterisation of his view. I know that you are totally aware that bias in the media is generally created not by lying but by careful choices about what stories to tell and what stories not to tell. Thus, a more sympathetic way to read Anderson’s argument is that your choice to tell these stories rather than other stories puts you in a similar bag as the rest of the conservative media. I’m sure that this criticism is one that you’ve come across numerous times while writing this book and one that you can probably respond to.

4. You really exaggerate “the left’s” support for Castro’s cuba. Two things about this exaggeration are important. Green Left Weekly is not an accurate representation of “The Left” whatever that phrase means. It is run by one group (the Democratic Socialist Party) and has a particular official stance on Cuba. What they think about Cuba does not reflect what any other left wing person thinks. Secondly, why buy into the silly terminology that lumps everyone in “the left” together? It’s ridiculous and rhetorically empty. Why not just criticise the people and publications that you think are problematic? I don’t think there’s much that I have in common with the Democratic Socialist Party but I would consider myself left wing. Does that put me in “The Left” or outside it?

On a very general point, I don’t know that much about Tim Anderson. What I do know is that he’s been a committed activist for a long time and I’ve read some very good stuff that he’s written on East Timor. I also know he is a respected academic. The tone you take in responding to him is not going to win anyone over to your side since it’s not obvious that he’s said anything stupid and even if he had, it’s better to deal with it respectfully.

I hope all is well and I’ll see you soon.

Cheers,
Mikey.