Debate over what motivates the Castro regime's drug smuggling

I love argument, I love debate. I don't expect anyone just to sit there and agree with me, that's not their job. - Margaret Thatcher  (1980)

 

Manuel Noriega and Fidel Castro embrace

Last night wrote about the Castro regime's decades long involvement in drug smuggling as part of an ideologically motivated agenda, but today was challenged by others with the thesis that the Cuban dictatorship's gun running and drug smuggling were done out of economic desperation due to the threat of economic collapse.

For the sake of brevity will highlight the most cogent argument on the matter and it was presented succinctly by Diana Álvarez Amell over twitter. ‏ She argued that "the pattern of the dictatorship in #Cuba -gun running and drug smuggling- when faced with economic collapse. The interesting question is why this is being publicized now."

The pattern of the dictatorship in #Cuba -gun running and drug smuggling- when faced with economic collapse. The interesting qquestion is why this is being publicized now. https://t.co/mUnvdoEU5f

— Diana Álvarez Amell (@alvaredi) May 21, 2019

My response was that "the Castro regime was heavily involved in drug running for decades, not just when facing economic collapse. It is part of the war against the decadent West." Professor Álvarez Amell responded that "That is to me an ideological red herring. It is about bare survival & staying in power, the rest, to paraphrase Oscar Wilde, "Don't use big words, they mean so little."

She had a point: "Don't use big words, they mean so little" - Oscar Wilde.." Followed up with a tweet that focused more on facts and less on SAT words and rhetoric. 

History would say otherwise. Cuba was placed on the list of state terror sponsors in 1982 b/c the Cuban govt was using a narcotics ring to funnel both arms & cash to the Colombian M19 terrorist group then battling to overthrow Colombia’s democratic govt. https://t.co/F4NcwcL5BZ

— John Suarez ن (@johnjsuarez) May 21, 2019

Professor Álvarez Amell rebutted that she saw things slightly differently, "Narco guerrilla is a self-serving way to support, while allowing the M19 to finance themselves & control the country side, & yet be beholden to Castro."

I would be inclined to agree, if this practice had started up as Soviet aide was drying up during the Gorbachev era. Until 1987 Soviet trade with Cuba had been increasing by 10% every year. The Castro regime's involvement in drug trafficking, gun smuggling, and international terrorism did not begin in the 1980s but in the early 1960s.

This is my rebuttal.

According to  the July 18, 1989 Heritage Foundation report, Castro's Show Trials Do Not Mean an End to Cuba's Drug Trade, the links to building narcotics networks to the United States stretch back to the earliest days of the dictatorship.

"Documented evidence of Cuba's role in drug trafficking dates back to the early 1960s. According to a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) intelligence report released in 1982, a meeting was held in Havana in 1961 between communist revolutionary Ernesto "Che" Guevara, Moises Crespo of the Cuban Secret Police, and future Chilean socialist president Salvador Allende, to.discuss creating a narcotics network to smuggle illegal drugs to the U.S."

This was at a time when Soviet aid to Cuba made the U.S. Embargo irrelevant to the Castro regime, and the purpose of sanctions was to increase the cost to the Soviet Union to operate in Latin America.

In April of 1986 in a now de-classified CIA intelligence assessment titled The Cuban-Soviet Connection: Costs, Benefits, and Directions reported the massive nature of Russian aid to Cuba:

“Soviet economic assistance to Cuba, for example, has averaged $4.5 billion annually since 1980, and is by far the most extensive Soviet aid program to any developing country.” ... “Soviet military aid, provided free of cost to Havana, amounts to more than $500 million per year and has transformed the Cuban military into one of the largest and best equipped forces in the Third World.”

This assessment by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) was also reflected in Fidel Castro's view of the embargo in 1985. When the Cuban dictator was asked what the impact of the US resuming trade relations with Cuba would be on the national economy Castro responded almost dismissively.

But, frankly speaking – I like frankness – economic relations with the United States would not imply any basic benefit for Cuba, no essential benefit. If trade relations with the U.S were renewed tomorrow, and if we were able to export our products to the United States, we would have to start making plans for new lines of production to be exported to the United States, because everything we are now producing and intend to produce in the next five years has already been sold on other markets. We would have to take them away from the other socialist countries in order to sell them back to the U.S., and the socialist countries pay us much better prices and have much better relations with us than does the United States. We export our citrus fruit, a large part of our sugar, a large part of our nickel, and other products to the other socialist countries, which not only pay us much higher prices and sell their products to us at lower prices, but also charge us much lower interest for credits and reschedule our debt for ten, fifteen, or twenty years without interest. In fact, what are we supposed to do? There's an old folk saying that goes, "Don't swap a cow for a goat!"

Not surprisingly the source, Fidel Castro: Nothing Can Stop the Course of History by Jeffrey M. Elliot and Mervyn M. Dymally (Pathfinder Press, 1986), cannot be found online, but on Amazon or in a library. This book was based in a question and answer interview of Fidel Castro published by Playboy Magazine.

Despite receiving massive and increasing Soviet subsidies between 1960 and 1987 the Castro regime engaged in massive arms smuggling and drug trafficking in the service of ideological objectives and as can be seen in Venezuela today in establishing a Cuban imperial presence in the hemisphere, and striking at the soft underbelly of the United States.  This would not be the first time that drug trafficking was carried out to advance imperial objectives.

Discussions and debates on US-Cuba Policy

“In all debates, let truth be thy aim, not victory, or an unjust interest: And endeavor to gain, rather than to expose thy Antagonist. ” - William Penn


There is a national conversation underway on U.S. - Cuba policy. At stake is not only the future of Cuba, but of democracy in Latin America and U.S. national security concerns. There have been solid debates that have shed more light than heat on this important issue such as the February 5, 2015 Tower Debate on U.S. Cuba relations, on the same day the Heritage Foundation panel on The Future of U.S. - Cuba relations held at Florida International University and the January 23, 2015 panel on Human Rights in Cuba.

Cuban society: the monologue disguised as dialogue

Cuban society: the monologue disguised as dialogue

"Cuban society is not white or black, it's not a matter of zero or 100."
Rafael Hernández, Cuban professor and Temas editor

"I look around and it is the other blockade which affects us most, that of censorship, intolerance and punishment to those that opine differently."
Yoani Sanchez, Philologist and blogger



There have been two events over the past two weeks that I would've liked to have attended. The first was at Florida International University two Thursdays ago. The second this past Thursday in Havana at the Fresa y Chocolate Cultural Center.

On Thursday, October 22, 2009 Rafael Hernández a University of Havana professor and editor of Temas delivered a lecture at FIU, according to The Miami Herald titled: Catharsis or Debate? Critical Thinking in the Public Sphere of Cuba Today. According to the Miami Herald the professor argued that "catharsis" or emotional arguments leads to "a denial of alternatives, personal reprobation, verbal aggression . . . a monologue rather than a dialogue." This is a redefinition of the word that flies in the face of thousands of years of history beginning with Aristotle and sets catharsis on its head.

Casually looking at the definition of the word it refers to the "purification or purgation of the emotions through art" that brings about spiritual renewal or release from tension by affording its expression leads to the "elimination of a complex." Psychologists say that catharsis offers a way to vent feelings in an appropriate manner. One approach to catharsis in the realm of theater uses negative experiences actively reliving them on stage in order that "participants can develop the creativity needed to find new solutions. " Perhaps a better title would have begun with "debate or dialogue" rather than "catharsis or debate" although in either case all of the terms: debate, dialogue, and catharsis have much to offer within the Cuban context and should not be demonized or marginalized.

When Professor Hernández argues that "If it was only Fidel Castro, it would not be a problem" referring to the denial of alternatives he ignores a half century of history not to mention constitutional and penal law. Now if what he means by this answer is that if others were not following orders and that having the brothers Castro spouting orders with no one to carry them out would end the problem then I would agree, but if the argument is that there are many who deny alternatives and engage in their own monologues and are unable to come together with a constructive program I would respectfully disagree.

In Cuba it is not a question of zero or 100 but rather one or nothing. Either you accept as laid out in Article 5 of the Cuban constitution that the Communist Party of Cuba is "the organized vanguard of the Cuban nation, is the highest leading force of society and of the state, which organizes and guides the common effort toward the goals of the construction of socialism and the progress toward a communist society" or you do not. No other political party is legally permitted or recognized in the current system. It is one party or nothing.

Furthermore the term nothing or zero applies to the freedoms recognized for Cubans who are in opposition to communism and advocate an alternative socio-economic-political system according to Article 62 of Cuba's constitution along with the warning that attempts to exercise those freedoms to advocate alternatives is "punished by law."

Professor Hernández's swipe at Yoani Sánchez and her Generation Y blog not meeting his vision of critical debate stating that "by definition, it is not an analytical debate ...unfortunately, it has more of catharsis than debate. Sorry,'' and arguing that there is "too much cyber-chancleteo'' [ gutter-level discourse] was both unfortunate and perhaps indicated a lack of familiarity with the material. Yoani's blog has been blocked from viewing in Cuba by the dictatorship.

This brings me to the second event I would have liked to have attended. On Thursday, October 29, 2009 the magazine Temas organized a debate about the Internet at the Fresa y Chocolate Cultural Center. Several bloggers, among them Claudia Cadelo, attempted to participate and were denied access with the phrase: “The institution reserves the right of admission.” Nevertheless clad with a blonde wig Yoani Sanchez was able to get in and briefly participate. This is an exerpt of her account of the event:

"A young writer asked to speak and lamented that so many had been prevented from entering; then someone came and mentioned terms such as “enemy,” “dangerous,” and “defend ourselves.” When finally I was called, I took the opportunity to ask what relationship there is between the limitations in bandwidth and the many websites censored for the Cuban public."

The questions she raises are concrete and refer to problems that impact most Cubans, and the actions by the organizers to restrict participation by those with a different point of view indicate a monologue disguised as a debate.



Instead of monologues disguised as debates or dialogues and ad hominem attacks disguised as detached criticism the internet offers a virtual space for catharsis, debate, and dialogue which can be the basis of a more open, pluralistic, and democratic conversation on Cuba that in the realm of ideas brings an end to the legally enforced totalitarian monologue.