Newsletters and Updates

Current Articles Indonesia Seminar 2009 (February 2008) Little Rock Cities Program (February 2008) Restorative Justice Work (February 2008) Interfaith Dialogue Initiative (February 2008) Ghost Ranch Workshop (January 2008) Local Training Opportunities (April 2007) Hong Kong/China Seminar 2008 (April 2007) Hartford Seminary Course (February 2007) Truth and Friendship Commission Update (January 2007) South Africa Seminar 2007 (January 2007) Aceh Peace Project Prospers (December 2006) Plowshares Celebrates 25th Anniversary (November 2006)

Cuba Traveling Seminar Reflections
Ted Carroll 

In response to Fidel Castro’s recent arrest of dissenters in Cuba, the United States is now considering economic and political steps to isolate Cuba further.  While such moves may seem justified on the surface, a closer look suggests they are counter-productive both to our national interests and to the cause of freedom long term.

In March, I was part of a 20-member “Plowshares seminar” that visited Cuba for 10 days.  We arrived in Havana the day bombs began dropping on Baghdad.  Coincidence or not, on that same day, Fidel began rounding up 75 Cuban citizens on vague charges they were plotting to undermine the government.

The U.S. and Cuba have had an uneasy relationship since the Cuban revolution of 1959 brought Fidel to power.  The previous ruler, Fulgencio Baptista, was a ruthless dictator who had been propped up both by U.S. corporations and the Mafia.  In the wake of the revolution, Castro seized assets held by U.S. companies and began a series of socialist-style reforms.  In turn, the U.S. began an economic boycott that has been in place for over 40 years. 

Spurned by its neighbor to the north, Cuba turned to the Soviet Union for economic support and military protection. The U.S.S.R. was all too willing to secure a foothold in the west.  Perhaps we should have learned from that experience how boycotts and other punitive diplomatic measures could backfire. 

The collapse of the Soviet Union in the late 80s resulted in the loss of Cuba’s largest trading partner.  Economic hardship, largely unknown since the revolution, became widespread.  Fidel began a series of “adjustments”, including opening Cuba up to foreign investments, allowing small-scale entrepreneurial ventures and cultivating a tourist economy.  Under Bill Clinton, the boycott was lifted slightly to allow agricultural and medical products to reach the economically strapped island.  Cubans in the U.S. could now send money to relatives still living on the island, creating an infusion of much-needed capital. Slowly, the Cuban economy has been recovering and opportunities for trade and foreign investment are emerging.

Over the last 10 years, there have also been an increased number of goodwill trips like the Plowshares seminar.  These exchanges enable Americans to experience Cuban culture, the beauty of Old Havana and the impressive social changes achieved in health and education.  At the same time, the more Cubans hear about our country---including the freedoms we have to travel, gather, speak our minds and pursue our dreams--- the more they want to taste such liberties for themselves.

If George Bush answers Fidel’s misguided attempts to thwart dissent with his own misguided attempts to isolate the island further, both the U.S. and Cuba will lose.  Americans miss the opportunity to visit a beautiful and welcoming island.  Our corporations will be shut out of an 11 million-person market with one of the best-educated workforces in Latin America.  And insights gained by Cubans literacy, health care and AIDS research would be denied us.

Fidel’s grip on Cuba will remain strong as long as he has the U.S. to blame for his country’s economic woes.  And the seeds of freedom are far less likely to be sown in Cuba if we deny ordinary Americans the chance to communicate directly with its people.  Even the Cuban American National Foundation, considered the most influential Cuban organization in the U.S., is urging moderation in the wake of Fidel’s latest crackdown.  In a recent Wall Street Journal article, CANF spokesman Joe Garcia is quoted; “overwhelming position of his board is that the U.S. should not react to Castro’s provocation.”

If our goal is to influence the future direction of Cuba, we’ll have more success with engagement and dialogue than with economic boycotts and political threats.  Our past policies toward Cuba haven’t worked to overthrow Castro, don’t promote the cause of democracy and certainly don’t make our world safer.  Only by breaking a 40-year “tit for tat” pattern will we be able to achieve some breakthroughs in our relationship with our neighbor.