ARENA and its dirty games

How to approach the case of Cuba?

The last decisions of the regime of Fidel Castro against the internal political dissidence have unleashed a series of negative reactions. The international community condemns these decisions, and the left-wing intellectuals –who formerly sympathized with the Cuban revolution- decided to wash their hands because they are horrified with the legalization of a barbaric determination. There are no circumstances powerful enough to justify a regime that bases its authoritarian behavior in an alleged preventive action against those who are considered the mercenaries of the Capitalist enemy. The human rights’ activists, the anti-imperialist friends of the Cuban revolution, are before the dilemma of the reprehensible actions of Castro and his sympathy for a regimen that he understands as a gesture of defiance against Neoliberalism. It is necessary to wonder if it is possible to admire the Cuban revolution and sympathize with the supposition that it represents an alternative for the prevailing Capitalism, and be at the same time a defender of the human rights. This is the dilemma of the world’s new left wing. This article will analyze these issues in the wide context of the defense of human rights in the present world.

Cuba and the cause of freedom
Ever since the victory of the Cuban revolution, in January of 1959, the progressive Latin Americans, and those from other parts of the world, saw in the government of the island and option to confront the Yankee imperialism. Back then, Communism was at its peak. The former Soviet Union and China, among other countries of the “late” Eastern block, flaunted their social and their economic innovations. Taking advantage of the support of the rest of Communist nations, especially the help of the extinct USSR, Cuba was also able to show good social and economic results. Many countries of the region looked at themselves in the Cuban mirror, and many of their sons undertook the task of embracing an alternative project.

Cuba supported that project and the liberation movements of the world in its battle against capitalism. The common dream of a better future for the oppressed countries became a political action. The expected changes were discerned without the asphyxiating tutelage of the United States and the Capitalist block. The freedom in the Latin American conception of this period was precisely the dissociation from the Imperialist project. For as long as the following American administrations supported the counterinsurgent efforts of the dominant sectors, the crisis became more intense and the desire to follow the Cuban example grew stronger.

However, shortly after those initiatives, the alternative project would crumble. With the fall of the Soviet Union, the leading force of the Communist block, the progressive movement’s aspirations were discouraged. Many people adopted a Capitalist perspective because now they begin to believe that there is no other way to save humanity from starving, and from a technological and an economic setback. At the same time, a new slogan became popular: the struggle for the human rights and democracy. The world woke up before the horror of the left-wing dictatorships and the call for democracy became louder. Social progress, freedom, and democracy became one in a single claim.

In spite of the deception caused by the fall of Socialism, some people did not feel too enthusiastic about the promises of progress made by Capitalism. For them, Cuba remained as the model of a struggling population able to survive despite the attacks of Capitalism. That is why Havana became the new mecca of the left wing, of those who were disappointed with the global victory of Capitalism and willing to give their testimony about the heroic struggle of this country. The Cuban regime was admired mostly because it had been capable of facing with dignity an empire. Cuba was better than many other Capitalist countries of the area, which faced disastrous economic and social results.

As a corollary of the admiration that the left-wing activists had for the Castro regime, they had not said a word about the incompatibility of the regime with democracy, as it is presented in its contemporary popular version. In Cuba, they do not have free periodical elections, and the dissidents cannot express their opposition to the government of the island. Some people thought that the democratic countries of the third world only had a formal democracy, and that Cuba, on the other hand, despite the lack of political democracy, it had a social democracy. The Cuban population had an easy access to the public health and the education services, which, among other rights, were fully guaranteed.

However, with the recent measures taken by the Castro Administration to execute a couple of men for kidnapping a boat –when plenty of similar actions have taken place before- and the arrest of the dissidents who promoted the introduction of several political changes, many intellectuals took distance from the regime. Once again there are discussions about the violations against the human rights of the Cuban population, whose political rights are disrespected by the regime.

The news about the execution of the kidnappers and the exemplar jail sentences for the dissidents also had an echo all over the world. The European Union has showed its intention to reduce its diplomatic contacts with the leaders of the island. A group of Latin American countries has criticized the Castro regime at the different international forums. In summary, during the last few weeks, the wave of international rejection has increased against the Cuban government. However, to this point, it would be convenient to wonder how can a fight against imperialism and the defense of the human rights work together, and examine their possibilities to succeed.

The contradictions of a world in search for decency
There is no doubt that what is reproachable about the behavior of the Castro regime is the case of those people who were executed and the case of the arrested dissidents. However, it is necessary to observe that the authoritarian behavior of the regime does not come from the past, that is why it is necessary to wonder about the main objective of the last declarations. They can be basically explained by the discomfort to defend of a regime that disrespect all of the political rights of its people, while others discuss and condemn the catastrophic situation of the human rights in the world. In other words, the left wing intellectuals and activists of the world, who openly condemned Fidel Castro’s abuses against the internal dissidence, intended to have a coherent discourse and a coherent attitude before the political and the economic dictatorships of the world. They do not want to keep making the same mistakes of the past, when Communism was accepted in spite of its slaughters against the helpless internal activists.

However, there is an interesting paradox: Is it technically possible to be an admirer of the alleged Cuban Model and, at the same time, to berate its abuses –just to use an euphemism- against the civil freedoms? What those who now criticize Castro’s behavior did not realize is that the survival in Cuba, before the asphyxiating strategy of the United States, is the result of the strict control of any dissident political expression inside the country. It can be said that most of the Cuban population wish to become part of a Capitalist world perhaps to enjoy the political freedom and overcome the critical economic situation that started with the fall of the Eastern block. In this sense, there is an evident contradiction between the Anti-Capitalist convictions of the left-wing activists and their critics against the recent authoritarian measures taken by Castro.

On the other hand, those who sympathized with the left wing are proud of the regime’s survival. And those who do not agree with the aforementioned measures would have to wonder if they would be willing support an armed intervention of the United States in Cuba to “free the Cuban people”. Is it an economic blockage a valid measure to promote the respect for the human rights? To what extent can the people appeal to the countries’ self-determination right to let the Cuban tyranny survive? Do the last measures justify an armed intervention of the United States in the island? Some conservative groups in the United States are already asking Bush if Cuba can be the next stop for its war machine. Who would not agree with such a decision? Have people considered that, as the regime puts it, these drastic decisions are necessary to face the new conservative attack of the present North American administration?

The crossroad in which the former defenders of the Castro regime are –who are uncomfortable with Castro’s present decisions- is not an obstacle to reflect about the hypocrisy that surrounds the Cuban case. Several Latin American administrations have sponsored the rejection of Castro’s regime through the human rights international organisms. Several international organizations considered that the reelection of Cuba as a member of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations was a major controversy.

The angry reactions of other countries, especially in Latin America, because of the critical violations against the human rights in Cuba, are an invitation to notice the satisfaction of these administrations in reference to other reproachable actions. This is the case, for instance, of how the United Sates have treated the war prisoners of Afghanistan. All of these governments have remained silent about this issue. And they do not seem to object to electing this country as a member of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations.

These considerations about the behavior of a nation that has strongly criticized the behavior of Cuba as far as the human rights issue is concerned are not intending to justify the actions of Cuba. The objective is to notice the hypocritical way to deal with the Cuban case. It is necessary to realize that in the present world there are many other countries where the human rights are violated. It is not an honest maneuver to attract the attention over one country in particular. In addition, the fight against these activities will never bring the desired results until no one feels above the general norm. And, there is still a lot to learn in order to reach that status.

The political astuteness and the economic rationality (Part II)

The past ARENA administrations have developed a series of economic reforms that have substantially changed the performance of the national economy. During the nineties, the system of pensions was privatized, a tax reform with a clear regressive bias was made, and the salaries –both the urban and the rural ones- were not leveled for the families to cover their basic needs. It can be inferred that many of the economic problems that ARENA seeks to resolve, have been generated by the same economic policies employed during the former administration periods. Therefore, it seems as if the ARENA governments suffer of a “permanently inconsistent economic policy”. When it comes to implement such policies, before considering the drawbacks, the Neoliberal economic rationality comes first. Instead of contributing to the country’s development, these policies fundamentally only seek to create more space for the financial activities.

That is why it is important to understand that the measures that the government made public, more than obeying to a noble motivation, contain a strong political component. In other words, the government –without accepting in a responsible way some of the negative aspects of its economic administration- is now trying to recuperate the votes of those who are unhappy with ARENA. With the measures announced by President Francisco Flores, ARENA is also trying to get the attention of new voters for the 2004 presidential elections. In this sense, just like several economists (Sachs-Larrain, 1994) have thought, the fundamental reason that lies beneath the surface of many “popular” economic policies seems to be related with the structure of the income distribution. There is a group of wealthy people who have a considerable amount of the national income, and their economic power can put pressure on the government in order to generate a regressive tax structure. Those who are mostly affected by this mechanism are the poor, because they only have a small part of the national income. As a product of the population’s demands –as it happened with the results of the elections- the government can generate an increase on the public expense, together with a scarce collection of taxes, which in the mid and in the long-term will lead to a serious fiscal unbalance.

It is important to understand that the government has to implement an economic reform to generate a progressive tax structure. In other words, those who make the lowest income should pay low tax rates, and those who make a higher income should pay higher tax rates.

In reference to the measures promoted by several political parties from the congress, and which are more related with the search and the negotiation of new loans, it could be said that probably the politicians might be concerned about the economic development only while they occupy an important position. Perhaps they do not care enough about the economic adjustments that may be necessary in the future. In this sense, many politicians might get into debt despite that in the future the service of the debt could be a heavy load. Therefore, it is necessary to evaluate the future implications of the approval of loans for the Salvadorans.

Due to the increase on the public expense and the increase on the investments that the government is after, it is important to examine the possible implications that these measures could have on the governmental administration during the up-coming years. In other words, the political parties, through a variety of public policies, are looking for the favors of a considerable part of the population. However, they should not forget about the possible economic implications can have in both the mid-term and the long-term. Nevertheless, in the case that one of them would manage to take control of the Executive organ, that would be the political party that will have to correct the political mistakes of today. That is why it is necessary to evaluate the political benefits and the economic effects that certain decisions might cause. In other words, the congressmen as well as the President should responsibly evaluate their judgments and their decisions for the political and the economic fields.

Any governmental policy that goes against the majority generates, in a way, a fertile ground for other governments to implement popular measures. That seems to be the style of the governments from ARENA, which for years launched economic reforms that did not bring any benefits for the population. Now they are worried about wining the 2004 presidential elections, and they are trying to patch the structural crackles of the national economy. With the reforms that were implemented during the last decade, those crackles became larger (see Proceso 1033).

Despite of the alleged “change of direction” that the government speaks about, it can be easy to notice that the fundamental economic policy has not actually changed. Presently, the government is looking to establish a free trade agreement with the United States. The Ministry of Economy has been trying to promote the positive effects that the free trade agreement might bring. However, the disadvantages of an agreement of this kind are not even mentioned. Everything seems to indicate that the government is trying hard to convince the Salvadoran population that the ratification of a treaty with the United States will be, in the near future, the solution to the economic problems. To say that there will be more and better jobs, a larger national production, a larger amount of exportations, among other benefits, covers up other aspects of the Salvadoran reality that will be crucial to establish a free trade area. Those negative aspects are the low productivity levels of the national companies, a labor force characterized by a low level of education and subjected to low wages, a small organizational capacity in the medium and the small companies to generate clusters. All of these problems can be added to a feeble agricultural production that generates the necessary space for the large American food companies to find a profitable market in the country.

Therefore, the Salvadoran population should be permanently alert to understand the announced measures. Everyone should be well informed, not only about the contents of the measures, but about its implications as well. Everybody should also be able to moderate the short-term biases of the politicians, because certain decisions are only positive for a small group of people.