Cuba, Fidel on TV and 'dissidents'

A frenzy of news has been generated over a group of Cuban 'dissidents' who, in a move mediated by the Catholic Church, have now moved to Spain. Much publicity about these 'dissidents' has been given in the Western media, but what about in Cuba? What significance do these 'dissidents' have? If you were to go by the attention lavished on them by the Western media, and that the Cuban government has practically deported them, then it would seem that they hold some clout. Well, in actual fact, they don't.

Again, as is the theme in this blog, the West, just like the East beforehand, is driven by ideology, so that when reporting about ideological enemies, a selective view is presented. To the West, these 'dissidents' are 'fighting for human rights' in Cuba, with particular emphasis placed on the Afro-Cubans. Cuba sees them as paid US agents, which considering that Obama has approved funding for telecommunications and computer equipment for these people, you can see why they come to this opinion. It's also interesting to add that while the Western media heavily emphasised the 'dissidents' in recent days, media sources in Eastern Europe such as Bulgaria and Russia paid little attention to them, knowing very well from their own experiences how little these 'dissidents' matter. For the West, yet again the romantic images of the Cold War still capture and distort our view and imagination.

First of all, we must see how historically different ideologies have classed a 'dissident', what publicity is given to them and how this does not necessarily reflect their clout. During the Cold War, much emphasis in the West was given to dissidents in Eastern Bloc countries such as Andrei Sakharov, Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Vaclav Havel and Georgi Markov. They were well known in the West, however in their home countries they were often irrelevant and had scant following amongst the masses. Their clout was greatly exaggerated by the Western media. To give an example, let's reverse the ideology. In the early 1970s the most famous American in the Eastern Bloc was Angela Davis. Do you know her? Well, if you have lived in the West all of your life, most likely not. In the Eastern bloc she was a prominent American dissident who was arrested for her activities with the Black Panthers, making her a poltical prisoner. In reality, her influence on American politics and society was minimal at most. However, if you were to believe the attention given to her in the Eastern Bloc at the time, which was immense, you would have thought that Nixon and the American establishment would have been trembling over her. Now, reverse back the analogy by replacing Angela Davis with Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn and the Eastern with the Western media, and now you know what's the case with these Cuban 'dissidents'.

Another aspect of the Cuban 'dissident' movement that is not lost on the Cuban public that even bothers with them is that it is predominantly white and elitist. The same was true in essence with the dissidents of Eastern Europe, many of whom came from well-educated and relatively comfortable backgrounds, and often much removed from the strain and hardships that the most of the population had to bear. This is another reason why they are not as popular as it would seem. That these dissidents had to suffer for their beliefs afterwards was often seen as tough and fair retribution by the masses for their priveleged backgrounds.

The Cuban 'dissidents' have now gone to Spain, but have vowed to continue the fight. But Cuba's government won't be scared. As what other countries have found out, it's better to get rid of the trouble makers as their actions are practically ineffectual once outside of the country. This is something that East Germany knew about, or even more pragmatically, Tito's Yugoslavia recognised this as the perfect way to flush out opposition - if you don't like it, then here's your passport and get lost! And they did!

The one thing is that 'dissidents' like the ones from Cuba can be too idealistic and naive. I am sure that their intentions are quite genuine and that they would like to see some elements of Cuban society change for the better. However, they should realise that they face the same fate as their East German counterparts who formed Neues Forum in 1989. Despite their genuine intentions of wanting to reform East Germany and initial public support, they ended up being used and eventually ditched by Western forces who saw them as just a disposable means to topple the East German government and completely impose capitalism. A year after Neues Forum had bravely organised demonstrations against the anachronistic SED leadership under Honecker, it was already forgotten by a public enticed by the lure of instant Western wealth and consumption.

Here is where the East Germans (and Eastern Europe as a whole) differ from the Cubans, plus why the 'dissidents' have little support in Cuba. By the late 1980s, Eastern Europe was comparing itself with Western Europe, so it could see that it was failing economically. So, seeing that the basic premise promoted by Western propaganda sources was that only Capitalism and the accompanying Western democratic system brings wealth, and that it was only geographic and historical coincidence that brought Communism to the East, that if they were 'democratic', they'd be just like West Germany. The Cubans, on the other hand, who are very well versed on world affairs and also aware of the pain and false hopes that Eastern Europe went through after the fall of the wall in 1989, know what type of system would result if the 'dissidents' were to gain clout. First of all, while the East Germans knew that had they been occupied by the Western Allies and not the Soviets, they would have been wealthy like the West Germans, the Cubans too look to their counterparts and see what Cuba would have been like had they remained capitalist after 1959 - The Cubans see Haiti, the Dominican Republic, Mexico, Central America and see poverty and inequality. Yes, the Cubans aren't exactly living in riches, but they do have universal and high quality education and health systems that are only available to a wealthy few in other Latin American countries. The USA tries to portray that Cuba would become rich like itself if it were to become a 'western democracy', but most Cubans are well aware that that won't be the case. Cubans know that despite the shortcomings of the current system, the system the US would impose after hijacking the initial efforts of these 'dissidents' (why else would the US be so interested in giving them equipment) would result in Cuba being no better than its neighbours. No more free education and universal medical care, and more grinding poverty. This is what these 'dissidents' represent to the Cuban masses.

Cubans often and quite loudly complain about their system and government, much like most people in supposed 'free' countries. Of course, if you were to go solely by the Western media, you'd think that all criticism of the government there is liable for prison - well, it isn't, and far from it. At least Cuba does not have death squads of the types that currently roam 'democratic' countries allied to the US such as Honduras or Colombia to silence dissidents. But we never hear of these, do we? Neither do we hear of Cuba's definition of what are greater human rights, namely the right to health care and decent education. If these were the parameters of human rights, the US would rank quite low.

To quote the words of my uncle in Bulgaria, before we used to complain not too much but have at least something to eat and a doctor look after you. Now we are free to complain all we want about being hungry and sick all the time and what's the point of freedom of travel when I can't afford to even catch a bus to the next village - that's 'freedom' for you.