********************  POSTING RULES & NOTES  ********************
#1 YOU MUST clip all extraneous text when replying to a message.
#2 This mail-list, like most, is publicly & permanently archived.
#3 Subscribe and post under an alias if #2 is a concern.
*****************************************************************

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
<http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25660> 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.



http://www.lrb.co.uk/blog/2016/11/29/glen-newey/the-clean-hands-problem/?utm_source=LRB+online+email&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=20161129+online&utm_content=usca_nonsubs
_________________________________________________________
Full posting guidelines at: http://www.marxmail.org/sub.htm
Set your options at: 
http://lists.csbs.utah.edu/options/marxism/archive%40mail-archive.com

Reply via email to