NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/misc/activism/progress/5319

Text File | 1992-07-23 | 12.5 KB | 231 lines

Newsgroups: misc.activism.progressive
Path: sparky!uunet!wupost!mont!pencil.cs.missouri.edu!daemon
From: [e-mail] (Harel Barzilai)
Subject: HISTORY LESSON: Chomsky on Cuba
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Followup-To: alt.activism.d
Originator: [e-mail]
Sender: [e-mail]
Nntp-Posting-Host: pencil.cs.missouri.edu
Organization: ?
Date: Fri, 24 Jul 1992 07:01:14 GMT
Approved: [e-mail]
Lines: 216


    Castro's overthrow of the [U.S.-backed] dictatorship in
    January 1959 soon elicited US hostility [...] By late 1959,
    the CIA and the State Department concluded that Castro had to
    be overthrown.  One reason, State Department liberals
    explained, was that "ourbusiness interests in Cuba have been
    seriously affected."
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    It is not Castro's crimes that disturb the rulers of the
    hemisphere [Washington], who cheerfully support the Suhartos
    and Saddam Husseins [so long as they are "useful"]
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
    By October 1959, planes based in Florida were carrying out
    strafing and bombing attacks against Cuban territory.  In
    December, CIA subversion was stepped up [..] Crucially, the
    ideological institutions must suppress the record of
    aggression, campaigns of terror, economic strangulation, and
    the other devices employed by the lord of the hemisphere in
    its dedication to "the true interests of the Cuban people."
    Cuba's plight must be attributed to the demon Castro and
    "Cuban socialism" alone.
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

##################################################################
Excerpted from
_Year 501: World Orders Old and New_ Part I by Noam Chomsky in Z magazine
##################################################################

The status of Cuba was of particular significance, another
illustration of the resilience of traditional themes.  The US was
firmly opposed to the independence of Cuba, "strategically
situated and rich in sugar and slaves" (Gleijeses).  Jefferson
advised President Madison to offer Napoleon a free hand in
Spanish America in return for the gift of Cuba to the United
States.  Secretary of State John Quincy Adams, the author of the
Monroe Doctrine, described Cuba as "an object of transcendent
importance to the commercial and political interests of our
Union." He too urged Spanish sovereignty until Cuba would fall
into US hands by "the laws of political...gravitation," a "ripe
fruit" for harvest.  Support for Spanish rule was near universal
in the executive and Congress; European powers, Colombia, and
Mexico were approached for assistance in the endeavor of blocking
the liberation of Cuba.  A prime concern was the democratic
tendencies in the Cuban independence movement, which advocated
abolition of slavery and equal rights for all, unlike the US,
which, in its Constitution, designated Black slaves as less than
human.  There was again a threat that "the rot might spread,"
even to our own shores. <<<fn: Gleijeses, _op. cit._; also _On
Power and Ideology_, 12f., 71f., and sources cited.>>>

By the end of the 19th century, the US was powerful enough to
ignore the British deterrent and conquer Cuba, just in time to
prevent the success of the indigenous liberation struggle.
Standard doctrines provided the justification for relegating Cuba
to virtual colonial status.  Cubans were "ignorant niggers,
half-breeds, and dagoes," the New York press observed, "a lot of
degenerates...no more capable of self-government than the savages
of Africa," the military command added.  The US imposed the rule
of the White propertied classes, who had no weird notions about
democracy, freedom, and equal rights, and were thus not
degenerates.  The "ripe fruit" was converted to a US plantation,
terminating the prospects for successful independent development.
In the 1930s, FDR cancelled the "good neighbor policy" to
overturn a civilian government regarded as a threat to US
commercial interests.  The Batista dictatorship served those
interests loyally, thus enjoying full support.

Castro's overthrow of the dictatorship in January 1959 soon
elicited US hostility, and a return to the traditional path.  By
late 1959, the CIA and the State Department concluded that Castro
had to be overthrown.  One reason, State Department liberals
explained, was that "our business interests in Cuba have been
seriously affected." A second was the rotten apple effect: "The
United States cannot hope to encourage and support sound economic
policies in other Latin American countries and promote necessary
private investments in Latin America if it is or appears to be
simultaneously cooperating with the Castro program," the State
Department concluded in November 1959.  But one condition was
added: "in view of Castro's strong though diminishing support in
Cuba, it is of great importance, however, that the United States
government not openly take actions which would cause the United
States to be blamed for his failure or downfall." As for Castro's
support, public opinion studies provided to the White House
(April 1960) concluded that most Cubans were optimistic about the
future and supported Castro, while only 7% expressed concern
about Communism and only 2% about failure to hold elections.
Soviet presence was nil. "The liberals, like the conservatives,
saw Castro as a threat to the hemisphere," historian Jules
Benjamin observes, "but without the world communist conspiracy
component."

    [For a comparison of Cuba's to U.S.-backed regimes' human
    rights records, send 1-line email GET LAT-AMER HMNRTS90 ACTIV-L
    to: [e-mail]]

    [If instead of making Castro look good you want to make
    him look like Mother Theresa, use GET ... ... ACTIV-L
    with AI_REPT  ELSALV  (also with DEATHSQD ES_US ), i.e.,
    with the U.S.-backed "democracy" in El Savador. Guatemala
    is the same. It is spending resources on anti-illeteracy
        campaigns and health and nutrition or land-reform efforts,
        and other ways of using the society's resources for the population
        itself rather than business profits, that is the cause of
        the hostility, as we see once again by looking at the Sandinista
        regime and its incomparably superior human rights record
        relative the U.S.-backed regimes (see above files; more by email);

        or by looking at Arbentz in Guatemala in '54, the last
        democracy, which alas threatened the United Fruit Co's
        profits, and hence was overthrown by CIA, followed by a
        string to this day of vicious dictatorship (or VD's with
        civilian facades --Harel)]

By October 1959, planes based in Florida were carrying out
strafing and bombing attacks against Cuban territory.  In
December, CIA subversion was stepped up, including supply of arms
to guerrilla bands and sabotage of sugar mills and other economic
targets.  In March 1960, the Eisenhower Administration formally
adopted a plan to overthrow Castro in favor of a regime "more
devoted to the true interests of the Cuban people and more
acceptable to the U.S.," emphasizing again that this must be done
"in such a manner as to avoid any appearance of U.S.
intervention."

That dictate remains in force as the US now advances towards the
traditional goal of preventing Cuban independence.  Crucially,
the ideological institutions must suppress the record of
aggression, campaigns of terror, economic strangulation, and the
other devices employed by the lord of the hemisphere in its
dedication to "the true interests of the Cuban people." Cuba's
plight must be attributed to the demon Castro and "Cuban
socialism" alone.  Castro bears full responsibility for the
"poverty, isolation and humbling dependence" on the USSR, the
_New York Times_ editors inform us, concluding triumphantly
that "the Cuban dictator has painted himself into his own
corner," without any help from us.  That being the case, by
doctrinal necessity, we should not intervene directly as some
"U.S. cold warriors" propose: "Fidel Castro's reign deserves to
end in home-grown failure, not martyrdom." Taking their stand at
the dovish extreme, the editors advise that we should continue to
stand aside, watching in silence as we have been doing for 30
years, so the naive reader would learn from this (quite typical)
version of history, crafted to satisfy doctrinal demands.

The US concern for "the true interests of the Cuban people"
merits no comment.  The concerns over public opinion in Cuba and
Latin America, and crucially the "true interests" of US business,
have always been real enough.  The former are understandable in
the light of the public opinion polls just cited, or the Latin
American reaction to the Agrarian Reform Law of May 1959,
acclaimed by one UN organization as "an example to follow" in all
Latin America.  Or by the conclusion of the World Health
Organization's representative in Cuba in 1980 that "there is no
question that Cuba has the best health statistics in Latin
America," with the health organization "of a very much developed
country" despite its poverty.  Or by the interest in Brazil and
other Latin American countries in Cuban biotechnology, unusual if
not unique for a small and poor country.

It is not Castro's crimes that disturb the rulers of the
hemisphere, who cheerfully support the Suhartos and Saddam
Husseins and Gramajos, however grotesque their crimes, as long as
they perform their service role.  Rather, it is the elements of
success that arouse fear and anger and the call for vengeance, a
fact that must also be suppressed by ideologists, not an easy
task, given the overwhelming evidence confirming this primary
principle of world order. <<<fn: Jules R. Benjamin, _The United
States and the Origins of the Cuban Revolution_ (Princeton, 1990),
186ff.; Stavrianos, 747.  _NYT_ editorial, Sept. 8, 1991.  UN,
biotechnology, _Env!o_, publication of the Jesuit Universidad
Centroamericana (UCA), Managua, Jan.-Feb. 1992.>>>

Sabotage, terror, and aggression were escalated further by the
Kennedy Administration, along with the kind of economic warfare
that no small country can long endure.  Cuban reliance on the US
as an export market and for imports had, of course, been
overwhelming, and could hardly be replaced without great cost.
In February 1962, the Kennedy Administration imposed an embargo,
breaking all economic, commercial, and financial relations.
Theoretically, medicines and some food were exempt, but food and
medical aid were denied after Cyclone Flora caused death and
destruction in October 1963.  Standard procedure, incidentally:
consider Carter's refusal to allow aid to any West Indian country
struck by the August 1980 hurricane unless Grenada was excluded
(they refused, and received no aid), or the US reaction when
Nicaragua was fortuitously devastated by a hurricane in 1988; any
weapon is permissible against the perpetrators of the crime of
independence.  The Kennedy Administration also sought to impose a
cultural quarantine to block the free flow of ideas and
information to the Latin American countries, whose unwillingness
to emulate US controls on travel and cultural interchange always
greatly troubled the Kennedy liberals, as did their legal
systems, requiring evidence for crimes by alleged "subversives,"
and their excessive liberalism generally. <<<fn: _Env!o_, _op.
cit._.  _Necessary Illusions_, 176f., 67-8; _On Power and
Ideology_. 22f.>>>

##################################################################
Excerpted from
_Year 501: World Orders Old and New_ Part I in Z magazine
##################################################################

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
"Z is an independent, progressive monthly magazine of critical thinking
on political, cultural, social, and economic life in the United
States.  It sees the racial, sexual, class, and political dimensions
of personal life as fundamental to understanding and improving
contemporary circumstances; and it aims to assist activist efforts to
attain a better future."
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Subscriptions: One Year $25; Two Years $40; Three Years $55
$18 student/low-income  //  Sample issue: $3.00
 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Z Magazine, // 150 W Canton St., // Boston MA 02118 // [phone]
[Some 100 pages per issue, no advertisements]
[Z is a project of the nonprofit Institute for Social & Cultural Change]