[A-List] US imperialism: Cuba, and the US "Left"

["Michael Keaney" <michael.keaney@xxxxxx>]

About that Cuba Letter
The Democratic Left and Castro

By STEVEN SHERMAN
Counterpunch, April 22 2003

The "Democratic Left", aka Leftists Against the Same Stuff as Bush (LASSAB
for short) are at it again. You know these folks-Leo Casey, Michael Berube,
Eric Alterman, Todd Gitlin In recent times they have bravely stood against
such forces as the Taliban and the ANSWER coalition. Now they have found a
new target. Not ones to be distracted by the chaotic beginnings of the
occupation of Iraq, police attacks on anti-war demonstrators, or 'mass
killings' (as the UN Human Rights Commission recently described them) by the
Israelis in the West Bank and Gaza, they have zeroed in on what they seem to
believe is the major threat to freedom in the world today: Cuba.

The focus of their activism is a letter being circulated by Leo Casey of The
United Federation of Teacher in New York. "In solidarity with the people of
Cuba", they condemn the recent detention of 80 "non-violent political
dissidents" and their closed court trials and harsh sentences. Fair-minded
as they are, the Democratic left also has some words about US policy towards
Cuba: "The democratic left worldwide has opposed the US embargo on Cuba as
counterproductive, more harmful to the interests of the Cuban people than
helpful to political democratization." Nevertheless, the rest of the three
paragraph long letter is devoted to the alleged crimes of the Cuban
government, which LASSAB clearly perceives as the greater wrongdoer. By the
end, Casey declares that "Despite (Cuba's) claims of social progress in
education and health care, (it is) just one more dictatorship."

Predictably, that great chronicler of LASSAB, Marc Cooper, has weighed in
with a column praising the letter. Cuba is basically a society where, "say,
a John Ashcroft would be unrestrained by the niceties of constitutional
law". The people arrested by the Cuban government were doing nothing more
pernicious than meeting with US diplomats ("meeting with delegations of
foreign political leaders", in Casey's somewhat more circumspect phrasing)
and Cooper has met with Cuban diplomats in the US without being arrested!
Cooper notes that his friends urged him not to write this column, but he
dismisses their concerns-"the actions taken by Fidel Castro.. are guaranteed
to only please the ultraright." He urges readers to sign on to the letter
being circulated by Casey, "one of the few, too few, leftist statements on
the issue", signed by a "number of prominent leftists".

Looking over the signatories, the absence of many leftists-both those coming
out of a Marxist background, who one might suspect are 'soft' on
revolutionary regimes (Alexander Cockburn, Mike Davis, James Petras, Tariq
Ali, etc) and those who come from more anarchistic perspectives (Michael
Albert, Noam Chomsky, Naomi Klein)-is striking. One might call all those
leftists who failed to sign this letter LAUSI (Leftists Against US
Imperialism). So the leftist reader might be confused: should she or he
stand with LASSAB, or LAUSI?

Closer examination of both Cooper's column and Casey's letter might clarify
the matter. For example, members of LAUSI probably believe that, if they are
living in the US, they are already living in a society where "a John
Ashcroft would be unrestrained by the niceties of constitutional law". How
else to explain various arbitrary detentions, attacks on peaceful protest,
and the ongoing nightmare of the 'detainees'. Since LAUSIstas oppose the
Republican parties' combination of apocalyptic Christian fundamentalism, US
pre-emptive strike doctrine, and Enron style capitalism, they might worry
about the fact that, according to Cooper, who seems to approve, the "Bush
administration's top diplomat in Cuba.. has been quite assertive.. Publicly
challenging Castro". They might suspect that, given the lengthy history of
terrorism and blockade against Cuba that the US has sponsored, he is trying
to build a spy network to bring down the regime or at least provide
intelligence to ease the likely pre-emptive strike.

LAUSIstas might also wonder about Casey's claim that the "Cuban state's
current repression of political dissidents amounts to collaboration with the
most reactionary elements of the US administration." After all, since the
executive, legislative, and judicial branches of the US federal government
are now firmly in the hands of the aforementioned Republican party, it is
difficult to know what non 'reactionary elements' Casey would like to see
Cuba ally with. LAUSIstas might also wonder about that description of the US
embargo of Cuba as 'counterproductive'. Most LAUSIstas would probably argue
that the embargo is meant to punish the Cuban government for building (not
'claiming' to do so, but actually building) decent health and education
systems, and providing their citizens with some protections against the
worst ravages of capitalism experienced by their neighbors. In this sense,
they might argue, the embargo's success at limiting the Cuban achievement
has been quite 'productive'. LAUSIstas not familiar with the guiding
principles of LASSAB might wonder where the signatories of the letter were
when the revolt in Bolivia against neo-liberalism was being violently
repressed, or when Bush announced he was sending American troops to guard an
oil pipeline and possibly fight guerrillas in Colombia alongside the worst
human rights violators in the hemisphere. Those more familiar with LASSAB
might explain that LASSAB rarely criticizes US allies or the US government,
unless its actions might be construed as 'counterproductive' to broader
goals of US power.

While few among LAUSI are likely pleased at the closed courts or executions
in Cuba, they would likely worry that, in the near future, the US government
will set its sights on regime change in Cuba. They may expect that the New
York Times will site Casey's letter as evidence that much of 'the left' is
opposed to Castro, and in fact believes that "the Cuban state.. is not a
government of the left". They may worry that as the US begins to move toward
a military confrontation, LASSAB will continue to scream about how awful
Castro is while offering minor bleats in objection to US unilateralism or
failure to pursue regime change through diplomacy (although, to be sure,
LASSAB's fire will probably turn away from Castro and towards those parts of
an emergent anti-war movement seen as excessively supportive of the Cuban
leader). I hope the above fairly describes the positions of LASSAB and
LAUSI, and help the reader to make an informed choice about whether or not
to sign Casey's letter.

Steven Sherman is a resident of Chapel Hill North Carolina who teaches at
UNC-Greensboro.