The Clean Hands Problem
Glen Newey
It has been said both that Fidel Castro was a bad man whose henchmen tortured and sometimes killed dissidents, and that Castro was a good man who gave Cuba a healthcare and literacy programme to rival many in the developed world. The BBC, in its quest for ‘balance’, says that people in Havana and Miami (‘only ninety miles away’), which hosts Trump’s only significant Hispanic constituency, are saying these things.
Philosophers chew over the ‘problem of dirty hands’ – thought to arise when a politician does something morally wrong in the name of securing a public good or preventing a public bad. It's notable that the problem is framed in that way, rather than as one that arises when a politician fails to secure the public good or prevent the bad by avoiding doing something morally wrong – the ‘problem of clean hands’, as it might be called. The notion that actors can acquit themselves of blame often relies on the fantasy that they act in a historical vacuum.
Fidel Castro was responsible for the deaths of many people. Amnesty International counted 216 completed death sentences in Cuba between Castro’s coming to power and 1987; the figure may be much higher when extrajudicial killings are included. It is however a clean-hands fantasy to think that political actors could simply have implemented a liberal democracy in Cuba at the time of the revolution against Batista's kleptocracy, which John F. Kennedy credited with 20,000 political murders during the dictatorship of 1952-59. Castro began as a land reformer, but various forces, US policy not least among them, pushed him towards ideological complicity with Marxism and geopolitical complicity with Moscow. Non-alignment on the Bandung model was hardly an option.
‘It is no wonder,’ Kennedy said in a presidential campaign speech in October 1960, ‘that during these years of American indifference’ – under Batista – ‘the Cuban people began to doubt the sincerity of our dedication to democracy.’ Elsewhere in the speech Kennedy lambasted the Eisenhower administration's record on Cuba, noting that at the start of 1959, US companies owned 40 per cent of Cuban sugar plantations, 80 per cent of the country’s utilities and most of its cattle ranches, mines and oil businesses. US arms funnelled to Batista were ‘justified in the name of hemispheric defence’, Kennedy said, but ‘their only real use was to crush the dictator's opposition.’
Once in office, Kennedy got with the programme, including the black ops and the economic embargo designed to crowbar Castro from office. The likelihood of Castro's moving in a liberal direction wasn't improved by the CIA's various attempts to kill him (eight between 1960 and 1965, according to the committee chaired by Frank Church), or by Kennedy's invasion attempt in 1961, which ended in fiasco. For the US, Castro's great crime wasn’t heading a repressive regime – ‘strong men’ such as Batista, Rafael Trujillo, Saddam Hussein, Mobutu Sese Seko or General Suharto got away with murder as long as they were US clients – or even his professed Marxism (Nixon and Kissinger were happy enough to cosy up to Mao Zedong when interest dictated); but that his regime was a standing rebuff to US might. Kennedy was ready to risk nuclear apocalypse to put paid to it.
It would be pleasing to think that the post-Castro era might herald an end to internment without trial on the island of Cuba, and the release of prisoners who have been tortured while in custody. Unfortunately, Barack Obama's administration has failed to carry out its promise to close Guantánamo.
Comments
There is never going to be proof one way or the other, I expect most of the people posting here have fairly similar ideas as to the sort of world they’d like to live in; but there’s complete disagreement about how to get there, in the end it’s a matter of choice. In my life I have found the following (expressed here by the Buddha) to be unfailingly true Hatred cannot be reconciled by hatred. Only love can reconcile hatred. This is an absolute truth.
Proofs exist only in mathematics, and history teaches useful things. One is that, when you step on the toes of the Capital, the Capital rips your head off. If you're a Castro, it's better to preempt this and rip its head off first. Revolution is war, and war is nasty. But the revolution has a fighting chance of making things better.
I wonder how many people around the globe would risk a ninety-mile trip on a rickety raft if putting their feet on U.S. soil meant instant citizenship?
Having worked in Cuba for two years at the height of Fidel's power, and even shaken his hand, I am convinced he was a sadistic brute. (Amnesty International, which has never had access to the island, are far from being able to quantify this: 216 verifiable executions over nearly 50+ years makes Fidel sound like a pussycat among dictators and is misleading.) In the '80s we thought that Raul (nicknamed "el Chino" because of his oriental looks and dubious parentage) was the hardliner and Fidel the personable opportunist. I now think we were deceived. Fidel was a narcissistic hoodlum who found himself, almost by fluke, in charge of a country. His famous charisma, when you studied it for hours and hours on end as I did, appeared more and more like method acting: with his knitted brows, Fidel proved early on that, as Katherine Hepburn, put it "once you can act sincerity you can act anything."
Glen Newey sees Castroism simply as an improvement on the Batista regime. A fairer historical comparison would be between Cuba's position in the 1950s as Latin America's most developed country (booming capital, eight-lane motorways and all) and its current, badly lagging position in terms of regional economic and political development. On the positive side of the balance sheet are an adequate public health system and high literacy rate (not to be confused with education - there's still little to read but propaganda and teachers must beg tourists for pens). On the negative, everything else - from housing, transport, agriculture, industry and consumer goods to human rights. After 67 years of so-called revolution, this is not a good record. And no-one but the Castros are to blame for it.
[picture of David Roberts]
TRIES TO REPUDIATE THE SIMPLISTIC IDEA THAT ALL BLAME LIES WITH A SINGLE PARTY...
...BY SIMPLISTICALLY ATTRIBUTING ALL BLAME TO ANOTHER SINGLE PARTY
Cuba must move on from Stalinist repression and put the owners of Guantanamo to shame. That is more important than a headlong rush to crony capitalism on the scale seen in Russia. How to avoid the fate of Allende, or the outright failure of Chavism, is another story. Cubans, at least, have kept their pride.
Say what you will about Fidel's repressive, brutal actions and tendencies, but I find it hard not to admire someone willing to stand up to the world's biggest bully and a bunch of loud mouth whingers in Miami no matter how dangerous that was for him and his "Revolution". His biggest mistake arguably was in predicting once that America would be the last bastion of capitalism. I'd love to know whether he still felt that way the last years of his life, or whether he might have thought that Cuba would be the last bastion of communism--at least of the Soviet kind. In either case I refuse to buy into the Castro hate of Los Guasanos.
Please don't cite Forbes or the Daily Mail
As I originally indicated, there are other legitimate reasons to criticize Fidel Castro. Do they outweigh his courage in taking on the truly corrupt and brutal Baptista regime and the all-powerful, bullying USA all over the globe? I'll leave that for historians to decide once a clearer, fuller pictures of Castro's rule and the responses to it by the USA and Cuban exiles emerge.
In the meantime, I can only agree with Nelson Mandela's reflections, as quoted in Mac Maharaj's op-ed in today's NYT, that "there is no passion to be found playing small — in settling for a life that is less than the one you are capable of living," and that "[m]en and women, all over the world, right down the centuries, come and go, Some leave nothing behind, not even their names. It would seem they never existed at all." Maharaj writes that Africans "will never forget [Fidel Castro]" and his "unshakable anticolonial and anti-apartheid beliefs guarantee a revered place for him in the hearts of South Africans." How easy it is for Castro's critics, most of whom have likely "played small" indeed, to forget or minimize such positive contributions to humankind and to maximize and exaggerate his mistakes, misjudgments and foibles.
I don't deny the many great things that Cuba under Castro did, but none of that excuses murder (which, for me, is what capital punishment always is) or feathering the nests of himself and his family. I believe that we on the Left should be doubly critical of our heroes, and unafraid to expose their weaknesses: truth is our standard, we should leave illusion and wishful thinking to the Right (or, at least, keep our wishful thinking to the belief that we can somehow build something better out of this insane world).
From the transcript of THE FOG OF WAR: ELEVEN LESSONS FROM THE LIFE OF ROBERT S. McNAMARA (http://www.errolmorris.com/film/fow_transcript.html)
It wasn't until January, 1992, in a meeting chaired by Castro in Havana, Cuba, that I learned 162 nuclear warheads, including 90 tactical warheads, were on the island at the time of this critical moment of the crisis. I couldn't believe what I was hearing, and Castro got very angry with me because I said, "Mr. President, let's stop this meeting. This is totally new to me, I'm not sure I got the translation right."
"Mr. President, I have three questions to you. Number one: did you know the nuclear warheads were there? Number two: if you did, would you have recommended to Khrushchev in the face of an U.S. attack that he use them? Number three: if he had used them, what would have happened to Cuba?"
He said, "Number one, I knew they were there. Number two, I would not have recommended to Khrushchev, I did recommend to Khrushchev that they be used. Number three, 'What would have happened to Cuba?' It would have been totally destroyed." That's how close we were.
EM: And he was willing to accept that?
Yes, and he went on to say: "Mr. McNamara, if you and President Kennedy had been in a similar situation, that's what you would have done." I said, "Mr. President, I hope to God we would not have done it. Pull the temple down on our heads? My God!"
This all highlights the problem for nuclear powers to always say they will push the button regardless. We had Teresa may saying she would, though like Castro she would need the consent of her client power, the USA. Do we have leaders as intelligent as Kennedy and Khrushchev to save us today? I don't think either Putin or Trump would be prepared for it to seem as though they were backing down.
As for disasterous 'Marxist' economic policies, it's difficult to see in what sense Cuba's policies have been 'Marxist', as opposed to hand-to-mouth efforts to survive a desperate geo-political situation. Marx, after all, envisaged a socialist society as coming into being on the basis of a high level of economic and cultural development, which has hardly been true for Cuba over the last century, any more than it was for the new Soviet Union at the end of the Civil War.