Negative comments in the NYT editorial about US-Cuba relations.

If anyone thought the NYT editorial board's lobbying for a renewal in normal US-Cuba relations was for positive reasons, this editorial makes clear how little this was true. All the twists and spins reflect the habitual arrogant, belittling attitude the US corporate elite has for Cuba.
It begins by talking about this new era testing the Cuban government's "historically tight grip on Cuban society". Then, ignoring the snail's pace at which the Obama administration is making any significant change (almost none), it goes on to lay the whole burden (or blame) on the Cuban government. It then compounds this fallacious argument by adding "Obama administration’s gamble on engaging with Cuba has made it increasingly hard for its leaders to blame their economic problems and isolation on the United States" --implying, of course, that the US policies and practices are NOT to blame. The NYT omits the reality that the Cuban leadership and analysts have never ignored their own problems --admitting them quite frankly and working to overcome them -- and the more important reality that the US has openly been attempting to destroy the Cuban economy and isolate the country politically for 5 decades precisely because it has not wanted the economic and social revolution there to succeed.

Referring to AIRbnb's entry into the Cuban private room rental business, NYT opines: "That debut in Cuba could boost the small, but growing private sector in a nation where people have only recently been allowed to earn a living outside state employment."

Aside from the fact that self-employment, room rentals and small private restaurants have existed since the 90s, there have also always been small private farmers --mostly previous tenant farmers who were given title to the land they worked as a result of the Revolution's Agrarian Reform --among other forms of self-employment. But the more egregious error --if you could call it a mistake, rather than disinformation -- is the mislabeling of the socialist government's attempt to provide full employment for a population that had previously been unemployed a large part of the year, underemployed or over-exploited the rest.

The truth is that most people did not want to be "allowed" to work outside of state employment, which didn't make them rich but gave them a security they had never had before. Sure, there are some people eagerly grasping at new opportunities. But it is also true that for a majority, they had to be pushed into this new "independence" from state employment.

When the Cuban government first announced it could no longer afford to be so "paternalistic" and would be reducing its workforce by a half million, many people panicked until the government assured them that this would be a gradual reduction, that no one would be thrown in the street and left without jobs (as regularly happens in capitalist countries). Most, it seems, were not eager to be "allowed" to earn their living outside state employment.

To its credit, the Cuban government has found ways to ease this transition, ranging from offering land to be held free, in usufruct, for those who would and could go farm it, to enabling small businesses to become worker-owned and run cooperatives. And is moving with all due caution in laying off workers who might not easily become self-employed.

The Times editorial board then goes on to become cheerleaders for the always-small and always created or supported band of "dissidents" by urging Latin American leaders who will be attending the Summit in Panama to pay attention to and give voice to these minor spokesmen for the "American Way of Life", bemoaning the fact that they haven't gained sufficient voice in their own country.

The Times describes these as " those who favor greater freedoms" and claims that although they have been dismissed as a fringe group" (which they are), the majority of Cubans actually want the same things they do.

But one has to wonder: what exactly are the "greater freedoms" The Times talks about? Most people in the US --not to mention the rest of the world -- would love to have the "greater freedoms" such as health care, education, job security, housing, literacy and such that the Cuban Revolution guarantees its citizens. And although The NYT may not realize it, internet connectivity -- which it sets out as an important goal -- is still unavailable to the majority of the world's population that lacks not only computers but electricity, phones, and even the ability to read and write.

Cuba has not been wrong in prioritizing other things first -- build roads, then install electric lines, build and supply schools and clinics throughout the country, in places where they did not exist before. Would they like more, better and faster email and internet service? Sure, the ones who have already benefited from the revolutionary government's provision of all of the above would like that. But First Things First.

Tweet