The definition of insanity

The definition of insanity, of course, is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. So we are told by Albert Einstein, who was a marvelously smart man, although I'm not aware of any particular credentials he held in the field of mental health. Still, let's accept that as at least a valid definition of insanity.

And has there been any better example of such repetitive insanity in the last 50 years than American policy toward Cuba?

Let me state upfront that I'm not a fan of the Castros. They appear to have been brutal thugs when they took over 50 years ago, and they continue to be brutal thugs today. Their removal from power in Cuba is a worthy goal, both on behalf of the Cuban people and in terms of American regional interests. I believe that this motivation was a significant portion of the reasoning behind the American embargo that was put in place after our catastrophe at Bay of Pigs and remains in place to this day. (If I'm feeling generous, I'll say that it was the primary motivation, although other motivations definitely played a large role, i.e. 'showing the Soviets that our penis is bigger than theirs' and 'protecting the economic interests of American companies and businessmen who have been using Cuba as their private fiefdom with our political support for a generation.')

There's only one problem. It hasn't worked.




And at some point, it became clear that this wasn't really about the Cuban people anymore. It was about Cold-War penis-waving, demonstrating toughness and firmness in foreign policy for political purposes, and pandering to the votes of the large and wealthy Cuban refugee population in Florida and elsewhere. It doesn't make sense otherwise. Economic sanctions are a legitimate tool of statecraft - witness with some Schadenfreude the unfolding collapse of the Russian economy, which stems in part from lower oil prices and in part from sanctions levied over its dickery in Ukraine - but like any tool, they are only as valuable as they are effective, and the embargo hasn't been. Instead, the Cuban government adjusted decades ago to the limitations placed upon it by America, and while the resulting status quo hasn't been pretty, it has been the very definition of stability.

And in the meantime, sanctions have been doing real harm to the people supposedly at the core of U.S. policy - the Cuban people. That's how sanctions work. The collapse of the Russian economy is bad news for Putin, but at the end of the day, he will suffer far less than the people who find themselves struggling to meet basic needs due to the economic damage we're inflicting. The only justification for inflicting this harm is the real hope of forcing change - in Russia's policies, and eventually in Russia's government - and there is at least reasonable cause to hope they will succeed. In the case of Cuba, there is no such hope. 50 years in, our policy can best be described as 'let's try to make the Cuban people so miserable and starving and desperate that they have to overthrow their government as a survival mechanism', which is a pretty shitty way to treat people we're supposedly trying to help.

There's an issue of fairness at play as well. There are a lot of countries that have problems as bad or worse than Cuba in terms of human rights. The Sisi administration in Egypt springs to mind, as does the Saudi Arabian attitude toward women. Both countries enjoy the enthusiastic and unstinting economic and military support of the American government, because they happen to be near to Israel and to dislike some of the same people that we dislike. Cuba, on the other hand, has no enemy that also is our enemy with which to broker a friendship. Because Cuba's intransigence is perceived as an affront to American interests - as opposed to, say, Palestinian or female Arab interests - they are free to suffer the full weight of the displeasure we refuse to level against our other liberty-challenged allies.

And I use that word intentionally: intransigence, which implies stubbornness and refusal to accept guidance. It seems pretty clear that from the beginning, a large part of American opposition to the Castro regime has been personal affont; American leaders were and are offended that a country so close to us, and over which we held effective hegemony for half a century, would dare defy our wishes and make friends with people we don't like.

I understand that realpolitik is a thing. I get that sometimes in foreign policy, you have to make deals with the devil. But to wash our hands of the misbehavior of some governments at the same time we are maintaining a 50-year embargo over the misbehavior of another is hypocrisy.

I've thought along these lines before, although I'll be honest that Cuba has always ranked pretty low on the list of things about American politics and foreign policy that bother me. But I'm delighted today to see that the Obama administration has taken steps to normalize diplomatic relations with Cuba. He can't do it all - lifting the full embargo requires an act of Congress, and you can guess exactly how eager the Republicans are to pile on Obama for 'appeasement' and all that rot. (And it is rot; you only appease someone when you want something from them, and aside from the release of one particular prisoner, who was part of an exchange, we didn't.) But we'll be sending delegations, opening an embassy, loosening certain specific limitations on travel and trade, and generally making our best effort at detente.

And of course, because he's Obama, the outrage machine is already spewing. I can accept that Marco Rubio sincerely believes that this is a bad policy toward Cuba; he has history there that, obviously, shapes his perspective. But I have trouble believing that anyone without a deep and personal grudge against the Castros could regard our 50-year vendetta against Cuba as anything other than a failure.

So let's try something else. Many are complaining that increased trade and economic opportunities will allow the Castros to strengthen their grip on power. After 50 years, I'd say it's pretty damn secure. It's possible that increased travel and trade - and the inevitable sharing of ideals and ideas that go with that - will help to undermine the regime. It's equally possible that it won't. But if either course of action is a wash in terms of regime change, it's NOT a wash for the people of Cuba, who are likely to see a substantial improvement in their standard of living if American investment becomes a thing. Of course, this is a dictatorship, so it's likely to assume that the majority of that investment will be channeled to the already-rich. But even if the 99% only get 1% of the pie, if you make the pie bigger, the 1% gets bigger. And since we can't do anything about the distribution of pie in Cuba (or in America, for that matter), the best we can hope to do right now is make that 1% worth having.

And of course, the opposition already is pouring in - from the Right, which has irrational hangups regarding Communism, the Castros, AND diplomacy - as well as from the Left, where some have held on to very paternal notions of benevolent regime change, or worse, fetishized the Castro regime as some sort of socialist utopia that will now be 'ruined' by American culture and money (the two tweets below being an amusing and instructive example of this mindset and how actual people under repressive regimes receive it).

Socialists in western countries, rich from the free market, would stand before Soviet poverty and gulags and tell us how lucky we were.
— Garry Kasparov (@Kasparov63) December 17, 2014

I'm very glad I was able to visit Cuba several times before US tourists try to turn it into Cancun
— jeremy scahill (@jeremyscahill) December 17, 2014

So overall, I'm in favor. At the end of the day, I think that limitations on human freedom and movement (which is what we've done re: Cuba) should only be put in place if there is a compelling reason to do so. After 50 years, it's clear there isn't. God (or your omnipotent power of choice) has granted us the courage to change what we can change, and now he has granted the wisdom to know what we can and what we can't. All that's left is for him to grant us the serenity to accept it.

EDIT: Good article from Daily Beast about the idiocy of whining about the impending commercialization of Cuba: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/12/18/stop-glorifying-cuban-hardship.html