Jesús Arboleya Cervera
By Jesús Arboleya Cervera
I could say that one of the greatest dangers that humankind faces are elections in the United States. Everybody is deeply concerned about what could happen as an election draws near. In fact, we live from election to election, even if we don’t have the right to vote in the U.S. and after all don’t give a damn about who rules that country.
The Cuban case is particularly enlightening in this case. Every time somebody needs a few votes or a candidate wants to rake in some contributions in Miami, Cuba becomes a world threat. Now it just so happens that Cuba is responsible for the tremendous social conflicts that plague Latin America and that Fidel Castro is behind the destabilization of Latin American democracies; reason enough for Assistant Secretary of State Roger Noriega to warn him that “he is playing with fire.”
How come this apparently unreasonable verbal offensive? In the first place, it’s because of the Summit of the Americas in Monterrey (while I write this column it has yet to conclude) where negotiations have surely taken place behind the scene for the traditional condemnation of Cuba at the UN Commission for Human Rights. The tactics are to demonize Cuba so that some governments can justify their vote and pressure others, like Argentina, which already have manifested their intentions to abstain.
Secondly, the measure is directed against Venezuela. Since Cuba no longer signifies only Cuba these days. It’s become popular to use the island-nation to justify pressure against others. The neoliberal democratic game has produced undesired results for the United States. As a consequence of the economic crisis brought on by the system, some governments in Latin America have been figuratively blown to pieces and others are on death row. Popular forces are permanently mobilized and governments who are more representative of national interests have reached power under the very rules imposed by the United States. Since it isn’t possible to condemn the “democratic pedigree” of those governments, the alleged link to Cuba is reason enough to make them illegitimate. They were OK, but they have deviated from the right path due to the evil influence of Cubans. No matter how absurd this may seem, it is the discourse being used by U.S. leaders.
No one on the continent has won more elections than Hugo Chávez. Additionally, thanks to popular support he survived a coup d’etat, which the United States backed, and the sabotage of its most important industry, also carried out with U.S. complicity, although it put in danger one of the main oil supplies of the United States. Chávez presides over the country with an array of news media that conspire against him, judges that protect his enemies, military personnel and businessmen that undermine the economy; but he is not democratic because he is a friend of Fidel Castro. It’s as simple as that.
Actually, the tactic is not new. Remember that every time a U.S. president negotiated a deal with the Soviet Union, in order to save his image as a tough guy, he had the obligation of attacking Cuba, verbally or otherwise. The present administration is not the first one to lie about Cuba, but honestly, few have lied so much. I believe not even Nixon himself – a monument to U.S. official mendacity – would have dared to lie as blatantly as the present administration.
Some say that we shouldn’t pay too much attention to those things. They argue that it is a consolation prize for the Miami “patriots” who, before each election, are promised an invasion of Cuba. The story is true, but no one can predict the final result when demagoguery is so heavily handed down. The demagogue is like a monkey with a shotgun. He can either blow his cage mate’s head off or shoot the boy that tosses him some peanuts. He can even accidentally shoot himself, which in the case of the monkey is a tragedy.
Besides its frantic declarations, the latest “gift” by the Bush administration to Miami fundamentalists was the cancellation of the half-yearly migratory talks. This is the only moment that the U.S. and Cuban authorities sit down and discuss bilateral issues. Even if it were a dialogue among deaf people, the meetings had the value of reminding us of a civilized event that found a solution to the 1994 migratory crisis. By the way, then President Clinton’s motivation for promoting the migratory agreements was not to help Cuba, but to solve a huge problem for the U.S. If this is the current trend and Election Day is 11 months away, then what will the other offers be?
It would seem that the policy of the Bush administration is to solve problems by creating bigger ones, particularly if someone tells them that it will win them votes. I have come to the conclusion that their acts cannot be evaluated with the traditional variables of the U.S. system. The polarization that has been created in that society is of such a kind that it doesn’t make sense to convince the opponent, so the natural stop gaps inherent in the system, created by the search of a consensus between the plutocracy and the majority of the middle class, are crumbling.
Perhaps then it would be worth advising Americans to forget about democracy under these premises and to crown a monarch, whoever he may be; even if it is the present president. It is obvious that kings don’t have to be smart, cultured, not even sensitive and honest. They are harmless because their amusement is guaranteed, and that’s the merit of the proposal. If they’d accept it, they would remove the torture of each election, and they could certainly live with less stress.
Jesús Arboleya has a Ph. D. in history and teaches at the University of Havana. He has written several books on the subject of US-Cuba relations, as well as on Cuban emigration.
