“… de las 6.6 millones de hectáreas cultivables del país, sólo están en uso unas 3.1 millones de hectáreas. Se podría añadir que de esta cifra sólo unas 500 mil hectáreas están en manos de campesinos o cooperativas privadas y sin embargo son responsables del 60 por ciento de la producción agrícola de la isla.”

Por Pablo Alfonso

Publicado el 09-12-2009

Diario Las Americas - enlace al original

Los políticos y los especialistas en mercadeo tienen mucho de común. Son

gente creativa que ofertan su producto, a veces, más allá de sus propias

posibilidades. Algo semejante sucede con ciertos empresarios que se

lanzan a la conquista de objetivos comerciales.

Políticos, empresarios y cabilderos han hecho gala de una inagotable

imaginación a lo largo de la última década en el tema de las relaciones

Cuba-Estados Unidos. Algunos con lógica inexcusable, otros con sus

intereses a flor de piel y la mayoría con ingenuos argumentos que rozan

el infantilismo.

En materia de comercio no he sido nunca de los que se oponen a que el

diferendo político entre Cuba y Estados Unidos sea un obstáculo para el

negocio. Otra cosa, por supuesto, es el ángulo político del asunto. No

siempre comercio y política van de la mano, aunque sería tonto pensar

que cada uno camina por una senda diferente.

Hecha la anterior aclaración en beneficio de los ríspidos, los impolutos

y los apasionados conversos de cada lado, es tiempo de pasar al tema de

esta columna.

Se trata de una entrevista publicada la pasada semana en el semanario

cubano Opciones, una especie de periódico que pretende ser un órgano de

temas económicos y financieros; tarea difícil en un país donde la

economía y las finanzas, se acuestan en la misma cama de la ideología y

la política.

Opciones entrevistó al empresario Jay Brickman, vicepresidente de la

naviera estadounidense Crowly y algunas de sus afirmaciones fueron

sorprendentes. Confieso que no sabría clasificarlas de infantiles,

interesadas o ingenuas. Dejo esa tarea a los lectores.

“Cuba podría suministrar aguacates, cítricos, café, azúcar y otros

productos a Estados Unidos cuando cese el embargo económico”, afirmó

Brickman, quien añadió que “en un futuro, Cuba puede ofrecer ciertos

productos (…) por ejemplo a la Florida, donde muchas de las tierras

cultivables se están usando para construcciones y ha bajado la producción”.

La cita es textual.

La naviera Crowly transporta productos agropecuarios estadounidenses a

Cuba desde su venta a la isla fue autorizadaa en el 2001. Bueno, uno

puede entender el interés de Brickman de que el comercio no sea en una

sola dirección para que sus barcos no tengan que regresar vacíos a

Estados Unidos.

Pero el argumento utilizado carece de realismo. ¿Qué tan informado está

Brickman de lo que sucede en Cuba?

Si las sanciones económicas a Cuba fueran suspendidas ahora mismo sería

casi menos que imposible que el régimen cubano estuviera en capacidad de

exportar productos agrícolas a Estados Unidos.

¿Dónde están los aguacates, señor Brickman? ¿Y el azúcar, el café y los

cítricos?

Brickman parece ignorar que la agricultura cubana, al igual que la

producción general de bienes en la isla, está en bancarrota.

Habría que recordarle que, según cifras oficiales, de las 6.6 millones

de hectáreas cultivables del país, sólo están en uso unas 3.1 millones

de hectáreas. Se podría añadir que de esta cifra sólo unas 500 mil

hectáreas están en manos de campesinos o cooperativas privadas y sin

embargo son responsables del 60 por ciento de la producción agrícola de

la isla.

Con la ineficiente producción del mayoritario sector estatal es

imposible alimentar a los 12 millones de habitantes del país.

El resultado de esta ecuación es sencillo. Debería estar claro para

todos los Brickman de este mundo que para revertir esa situación, la

dictadura castrista tiene que dejar a un lado el estatismo y liberar a

las fuerzas productivas del país, poniéndolas en manos de los cubanos.

Casi nada. Todo un cambio de sistema. Cuando eso suceda, entonces Cuba

sí estaría en condiciones de vender sus excedentes agrícolas a Estados

Unidos.

Ahora mismo, si no existiera el embargo, el régimen cubano tiene muy

poco que ofrecer al mercado estadounidense. El níquel está comprometido,

al igual que el tabaco y el puñado de azúcar que produce.

Nos queda el sol, el mar y las arenas blancas de nuestras playas. Eso es

algo que no ha podido opacar la revolución castrista.

Diario Las Americas - ¿Dónde están los aguacates? (12 September 2009)

Despite a rigid embargo that has spanned half a century, the United States is playing a major role in feeding Cuba.

BY MARTHA BRANNIGAN

MBRANNIGAN@MIAMIHERALD.COM

Miami Herald - link to original 

Sept 6, 2009.

When a Havana family sits down for pollo asado, passes pan de ajo across the kitchen table or splurges on some chocolate soy ice cream, chances are the ingredients came from U.S. farms.

Venezuela may boast of its revolutionary friendship with Cuba, and China may send its youth there to study Spanish, but the United States has emerged as the No. 1 exporter of agricultural products to Cuba.

And that’s not all that can be sent to Cuba legally. Try live primates, truffles, azalea bushes, fox furs — even cigars.

When President Obama announced plans in April to ease the embargo by lifting family-travel restrictions to the island and allowing U.S. telecommunications firms wide latitude to do business there, many analysts said the policy changes could significantly expand ties between the estranged neighbors — assuming Havana responds positively to the overture.

But fairly significant commerce has been going on since the Trade Sanctions Reform and Enhancement Act of 2000 opened the door to U.S. food and medicine exports to Cuba — despite the tense relationship between Havana and Washington and a trade embargo that has spanned nearly 50 years.

U.S. agricultural exports to Cuba hit a record $711.5 million in 2008, as prices for commodities soared. That makes the United States Cuba’s fifth-largest trading partner overall.

“We are the natural provider of food and agriculture products to Cuba,” says Kirby Jones, president of Alamar Associates, a consulting firm for U.S. companies aspiring to trade with Cuba. “We’re No. 1 and could be selling a lot more, were it not for the restrictions.”

Over the past nine years, Cuba, which imports 80 percent of its food, has come to rely heavily on its nemesis to the north for wheat, corn, soy goods and scores of other key agricultural products.

American companies provide two-thirds of Cuba’s imported chicken and more than 40 percent of its pork imports. Utility poles, organic fertilizer and chewing gum also make their way in.

Not much medicine has been shipped, however, since Cuba has other options.

CASH FLOWS FROM U.S.

Much has changed since President John F. Kennedy imposed a total economic embargo of Cuba in 1962, making it illegal for Americans to spend any money in Cuba or trade with Havana.

The chinks began when some travel restrictions were lifted in the late 1970s, and through the years there has been a tightening and loosening of the embargo as administrations change in Washington.

In recent years, Cuba has raked in U.S. dollars in a host of other ways, too:

• The Castro government charges a 10 percent fee to exchange greenbacks for convertible pesos, or CUCs, used by Cuban Americans and other visitors, and there’s another 10 percent hit due to the unfavorable exchange rate given by money changers.

• Cuba also gets millions of dollars — perhaps hundreds of millions — in fees from U.S. telecommunications companies that already provide long-distance service to the island through third countries.

• When Cuban Americans make trips to Cuba, they generally travel heavy, lugging an estimated $3,000 to $5,000 in goods for family and friends. If just half of the 200,000 Cuban travelers expected this year carried even the low end, or $3,000 worth, that would amount to $300 million of clothing, electronics and household gadgets winding up in Cuba in 2009 alone. These travelers also are allowed to spend up to $179 per day while in Cuba, according to U.S. regulations.

• Cuba’s airport-related fees levied on U.S. air-charter companies average $120 per passenger, according to charter officials, which would bring in some $12 million for the 100,000 U.S. visitors last year and possibly double that amount this year.

• And money sent by individual Cuban Americans to help family members amounts to an estimated $400 to $800 million a year, according to a 2004 study by the Commission for Assistance to a Free Cuba, which noted some estimates put U.S. remittances as high as $1 billion a year.

Even with all major portions of the embargo still in place, such commercial ties between the United States and Cuba could easily exceed $2 billion a year.

TOUGH BUSINESS

Meanwhile, a series of intentional hurdles reflects the U.S. government’s conflicted attitude toward dealing with the communist regime that has outlived nine U.S. presidents.

The cash-strapped island must pay in advance for U.S. goods, and with no banking ties between two nations, Cuba has to pay through a bank in a third country, typically France.

U.S. exporters need clearance from the Office of Foreign Assets Control and the Commerce Department’s Bureau of Industry and Security. Cargo ships carrying goods from the United States must go directly to Cuba before visiting any other nations, and they are forbidden from picking up anything to haul elsewhere. Cuban food inspectors often can’t get visas to visit U.S. facilities.

And the trade remains a one-way street. Virtually nothing can be imported to the United States from Cuba, with the exception of artwork, printed materials and recordings. Last year, that came to a grand total of $39,126.

That gives Cuba the curious distinction of helping the United States with its chronic balance of trade deficit, albeit in a token fashion.

The obstacles to Cuba trade have tipped the scales in favor of agribusiness Goliaths like Cargill, Archer Daniels Midland and Tyson Foods.

For American businesses, there is only one customer in Cuba: Alimport, the government agency that coordinates purchases from the United States.

Small and mid-sized exporters are often spooked by the maze of regulations and the opaque process of selling to Cuba. More than a few would-be exporters have ventured to Havana trade fairs only to come home empty-handed.

“People [looking to export to Cuba] get discouraged,” says Jay Brickman, vice president of government services at Crowley Maritime Corp. He travels frequently to Cuba for his company, which sends a cargo ship with chicken and other agricultural products to Havana from Port Everglades every week.

“They confuse being nicely received by the Cubans with the idea they’re going to get business. Cuba is limited [in its ability to buy imports], and they’re price-conscious. You almost have to have a certain passion to really want to be there,” he said.

Some U.S. business executives imagine big opportunities in an untapped market. Others are drawn to the forbidden fruit.

Naples businessman John Parke Wright IV shipped beef cattle to Cuba from Port Everglades three years ago and flew to Havana to shepherd his herd from the dock.

Last year, Wright, a member of the Lykes family that owned vast agricultural lands in Cuba before they were seized in the revolution, exported 2,500 straws of Brahman bull semen from the J.D. Hudgins ranch in Hungerford, Texas, to impregnate Cuban heifers.

Now he’s negotiating more cattle deals for Florida and Alabama Brangus cattle and semen. Wright, who has been making frequent visits to Cuba for nearly a decade, sees big potential for agricultural development on the island, in keeping with President Raúl Castro’s recent call to the Cuban people to work the land. “There was and there is another Florida there in the land mass and agricultural potential,” says Wright.

But many others have called it quits after a few sales. Independent Meats shipped some goods about a year and a half ago, but decided its Idaho location is too far west to compete with other U.S. suppliers.

“It just didn’t make a lot of sense for us,” said Independent Chief Executive Patrick Florence.

Cuba, meanwhile, has spread out its purchases among as many U.S. states as it practically can in hopes of drumming up support in Congress for an end to the embargo.

And yet, this year, U.S. exports will likely trail 2008 as Cuba struggles with severe financial problems that limit its ability to pay for foreign goods..

CUBA’S CREDIT WOES

Some experts believe Cuba is facing its biggest challenges since the early 1990s, when the collapse of the Soviet Union left Fidel Castro scrambling for support in a changed world.

Just as poor families do, the Cuban government often makes purchases based on access to credit. That leaves U.S. businesses at a disadvantage, since transactions must be in cash.

U.S.-grown rice, especially the long-grain style favored in many recipes, was a huge hit with Cubans until 2005, when the Bush administration changed the meaning of cash in advance to mean payment before a product leaves U.S. shores — instead of when it arrives in port in Cuba.

Since that tightening of policy — which is expected to be reversed under provisions in the 2009 omnibus appropriations bill — U.S. rice exports to the island have plunged. Cuba has relied more on Vietnam, which is thousands of miles away and sometimes delivers broken rice but provides generous credit.

Some argue, however, that the cash-in-advance rule is a blessing in disguise for American companies, because it ensures that they get paid.

“Cuba generally doesn’t pay on time,” says John Kavulich, senior policy advisor for the nonprofit U.S.-Cuba Trade and Economic Council. “And sometimes it doesn’t pay at all.

martes 1 de septiembre de 2009

Enlace al original

MIAMI (Reuters) - Los cubano estadounidenses están divididos sobre si Estados Unidos debe mantener su embargo comercial de 47 años contra Cuba, según una reciente encuesta, pero el apoyo al mantenimiento de las sanciones parece haber disminuido.

La encuesta, realizada por la firma Bendixen & Associates y publicada el martes por el diario Miami Herald, mostró que un 41 por ciento de los cubano estadounidenses se oponen a mantener el embargo, mientras un 40 por ciento apoyan mantenerlo.

Fernand Amandi, el vicepresidente ejecutivo de Bendixen, una consultora que estudia desde hace tiempo a la comunidad cubano estadounidense de 1,5 millones de personas en Estados Unidos, dijo al Miami Herald que la encuesta reflejaba una “evolución de ideas” entre los exiliados.

“Después de 50 años, algunos cubanos han llegado a la dolorosa conclusión de que el embargo quizás no ha sido la herramienta más efectiva contra el regimen de Castro”, dijo.

La revolución de Fidel Castro en 1959 llevó a un rápido deterioro de las relaciones con Estados Unidos.

Washington rompió relaciones diplomáticas con La Habana en 1961 y al año siguiente impuso su embargo comercial, en respuesta a la nacionalización de empresas estadounidenses en Cuba y por temor a que Castro girara hacia el comunismo.

Amandi, de Bendixen, dijo que el alto respaldo a poner fin al embargo mostrado por la encuesta hubiera sido una “herejía” hace seis o siete años, cuando el apoyo a las sanciones comerciales era mayor entre los exiliados cubanos.

Bendixen realizó la encuesta el 24 de agosto, entrevistando a 400 cubano estadounidenses adultos en todo el país. El sondeo tiene un margen de error de cinco puntos porcentuales.

Desde que asumió el poder en enero, el presidente Barack Obama ha dicho que quiere forjar un “nuevo comienzo” en las relaciones de Estados Unidos con Cuba.

Pero pese a su apertura hacia Cuba, Obama dejó claro que pretende mantener el embargo hasta que el Gobierno cubano se comprometa a excarcelar a sus presos políticos y mejorar los derechos humanos.

El presidente cubano Raúl Castro descartó cualquier tipo de “concesión” o cambios hacia el capitalismo.

Obama suavizó levemente en abril el embargo, al eliminar restricciones para que los cubano estadounidenses viajen a la isla y envíen remesas a sus familiares.

Una encuesta de Bendixen realizada en abril mostró que un 64 por ciento de los cubano estadounidenses apoyaban las medidas de Obama para suavizar el embargo.

Obama también reanudó las conversaciones sobre inmigración con el Gobierno de Raúl Castro, que reemplazó el año pasado a su convaleciente hermano Fidel en la presidencia.

Según diplomáticos, ambos países se disponen a discutir este mes la reactivación del servicio de correo directo, interrumpido décadas atrás.

Los analistas dicen que un cambio generacional tuvo lugar en las últimas décadas en la comunidad de exiliados cubanos, donde los más jóvenes y recién llegados favorecen un incremento de los lazos con Cuba, mientras los “históricos”, más veteranos, siguen firmes en su oposición a Castro y su apoyo al embargo.

La encuesta del 24 de agosto mostró que mientras el 62 por ciento de los cubanos llegados a Estados Unidos en la década de 1960 o antes favorecen el mantenimiento del embargo, la mayoría de los que llegaron a partir de la década de 1980 está a favor del levantamiento.

(Reporte de Pascal Fletcher. Editado por Lucila Sigal)

The New Republic  - link

Published: April 29, 2009

by Alvaro Vargas Llosa,  

WASHINGTON–Most Americans seem to reject the U.S. trade embargo against Cuba. According to a Washington Post/ABC poll, 57 percent of Americans now oppose the policy. A survey by Bendixen & Associates shows that only 42 percent of Cuban-Americans continue to back it.    

I have been conflicted on this issue for years. Until not long ago, I favored the embargo. As an advocate for free trade, I would normally have called such a measure an unacceptable restriction on the freedom of people to trade with whomever they pleased. But I thought that trading with a regime that had killed, jailed, exiled or muzzled countless of its citizens for decades was not a worthy objective, as it would also preserve that dictatorship. Any transaction with Cuba would also benefit the government. After all, the authorities were already skimming 20 percent of the remittances from Cuban-Americans and 90 percent of the salary paid to Cubans by non-American foreign investors.    

Eventually, I admitted to myself that there was an intolerable inconsistency in my thinking. No democracy based on liberty should tell its citizens what country to visit or whom to trade with, regardless of the government under which they live. Even though the Castro brothers, Fidel and Raul, would obtain a political victory in the very short run, the embargo could no longer be justified.

But this is not the reasoning coming from the most vocal critics of U.S. sanctions these days. Many of them fail to even mention the fraud that is a system which bases its legitimacy on the renunciation of capitalism and at the same time implores capitalism to come to its rescue. There is also an endearing hypocrisy among those who decry the embargo but devote hardly any time to denouncing the island’s half-century tyranny under the Castros.    

Another risible subterfuge attributes the catastrophe that is Cuba’s economy on Washington’s decision to cut off economic relations in 1962 after a wave of expropriations against American interests. The amnesiacs conveniently forget that in 1958, Cuba’s socioeconomic condition was similar to Spain’s and Portugal’s and the standard of living of its citizens was behind only those of Argentines and Uruguayans in Latin America. Many of the critics also seem to suffer what French writer Jean-Francois Revel used to call “moral hemiplegia”–a tendency to seefault only on one side of the political spectrum: I never heard Cuba’s champions complain about sanctions against right-wing dictatorships.

Sometimes, sanctions work, sometimes they don’t. A study by Gary Hufbauer, Jeffrey Schott, Kimberly Elliot and Barbara Oegg titled “Economic Sanctions Reconsidered” analyzes dozens of cases of sanctions since World War I. In about a third of them, they worked either because they helped to topple the regime (South Africa) or because they forced the dictator to make major concessions (Libya). Archbishop Desmond Tutu told me a few months ago in San Francisco that he was convinced that international

sanctions were crucial in defeating apartheid in his home country. In the cases in which the embargo worked, the sanctions were applied by many countries and the affected regimes were already severely discredited or weakened.

In the cases in which sanctions have not worked–Saddam Hussein between 1990 and 2003, and North Korea today–the dictatorships were able to isolate themselves from the effects and concentrate them on the population. In some countries, a certain sense of pride helped defend the government against foreign sanctions–which is why the measures applied by the Soviet Union against Yugoslavia in 1948, China in 1960 and Albania in 1961 were largely useless.

In the case of Cuba, the Castro regime has been able to whip up a nationalist sentiment against the U.S. embargo. More significantly, it has managed to offset much of the effects over the years in large part because the Soviets subsidized the island for three decades, because the regime welcomed Canadian, Mexican and European capital after the collapse of the Berlin Wall, and because Venezuela is its new patron.    

But these arguments against the U.S. embargo are mostly practical. Ultimately, the argument against the sanctions is a moral one. It is not acceptable for a government to abolish individual choice in matters of trade and travel. The only acceptable form of economic embargo is when citizens, not governments, decide not to do business with a dictatorship, be that of Burma, Zimbabwe or Cuba.

Alvaro Vargas Llosa is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute and the editor of “Lessons from the Poor.”

20 de Enero, 2009 

SDP - EL Sendero del Peje - México,DF,Mexico - enlace

Madrid, 20 Ene (Notimex).- El ex canciller mexicano Jorge Castañeda afirmó hoy que al nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos, Barack Obama, podría beneficiarle considerar un fin unilateral del embargo a Cuba, sin esperar nada del régimen de la isla a cambio.

En un artículo de opinión publicado por el diario español El País, sostuvo que con ello se generaría una serie de concesiones cruzadas que, por un lado, podrían satisfacer al Congreso estadunidense, y por el otro, colocarían los temas más importantes sobre la mesa.

“Le permitirían a Obama cumplir sus promesas y a la vez lograr un verdadero avance”, señaló Castañeda apenas horas antes de que tome posesión Barack Obama como nuevo presidente de Estados Unidos.

Aseveró que a cambio de la abrogación del embargo, varios actores latinoamericanos clave como Brasil, Chile y México, y quizás un europeo, España, se comprometerían a apoyar y buscar activamente un proceso de normalización entre Washington y La Habana.

Esto incluiría, a la postre, el establecimiento de la democracia representativa en Cuba, así como un verdadero respeto por los derechos humanos, agregó el también profesor de Estudios Latinoamericanos de la Universidad de Nueva York.

“Los cubanos obtendrían lo que según ellos quieren: un término incondicional a lo que llaman el bloqueo, el principio de un proceso de negociaciones, y quizás incluso el acceso a recursos de los organismos financieros internacionales, que tan desesperadamente necesitan”, dijo.

Añadió que los defensores de los derechos humanos en América Latina y en otros países podrían sentirse satisfechos de que sus preocupaciones y las de los cubanos en el extranjero habrían sido atendidas, si no al principio, por lo menos en alguna etapa previamente acordada de todo el proceso.

Entre ellas se refirió a la celebración de elecciones libres, la vigencia de la libertad de prensa y de asociación y la liberación de los presos políticos, entre otras.

Castañeda remarcó que a Obama le iría “de maravilla” con esta fórmula, ya que por un lado sí habría modificado la política tradicional de Estados Unidos hacia Cuba, pero no a cambio de nada.

“Conquistaría el compromiso de los principales actores latinoamericanos y europeos con los principios que el mismo sostiene, a pesar de la tradicional renuencia de estas naciones a involucrarse en los asuntos supuestamente internos de otro país”, prosiguió.

Incluso aquellos republicanos moderados, cuyos votos le resultarían imprescindibles al nuevo presidente norteamericano, podrían proclamar su fidelidad a su postura tradicional: Estados Unidos no dio algo a cambio de nada, afirmó.

Sin embargo, admitió que es difícil que en Cuba se acepte esa fórmula. “Aquí la cosa se pone más difícil y seguramente no se aceptará mientras viva Fidel, y tal vez ni siquiera después”, reconoció.

Expresó que en ese caso Obama habría levantado el embargo, despojándose de lo que muchos consideran como la única ficha con la que cuenta Estados Unidos, sin haber recibido nada a cambio.

Pero, por otro lado, si la derogación del embargo, y consecuentemente de todas las restricciones a los viajes en ambas direcciones, al flujo de información y de remesas, entre otras cosas, obliga a Cuba a abrir su sociedad, a diferencia de China y Vietnam, habrá valido la pena.

Después de medio siglo de revolución, la economía de la isla está en bancarrota

MAITE RICO 

EL PAíS  - enlace

Madrid - 05/01/2009

El máximo líder cubano, Fidel Castro, y su hermano Raúl, presidente del país, han decidido pasar de puntillas por el 50º aniversario de la revolución que los aupó al poder. Y es que la población, sumergida en la lucha por la supervivencia, no está para celebraciones. El régimen esgrime “los huracanes y la crisis financiera internacional”, además del embargo estadounidense, para explicar el hundimiento de la que fuera la tercera potencia económica de Latinoamérica en 1957. Los economistas, y muchos cubanos de a pie, califican de “coartadas” esas razones y culpan a un “sistema disfuncional y totalitario”.

Los cubanos viven peor hoy que hace 50 años: lo dicen ellos y lo confirman las estadísticas. Desde que Moscú suspendió los subsidios en 1990, la isla no levanta cabeza y la producción está paralizada. El salario (un promedio de 400 pesos o 15 euros al mes) no alcanza para cubrir las necesidades básicas de una familia, como ha reconocido el propio Raúl Castro. Los alimentos que se reparten con la cartilla de racionamiento apenas dan para una semana.

Las penurias se han agudizado con la introducción de la doble moneda: los cubanos reciben el sueldo en pesos, pero deben comprar toda una serie de artículos en pesos convertibles o CUC, rebautizados popularmente como chavitos. Un CUC equivale a 24 pesos nacionales (un euro). Los pesos sirven en las bodegas de alimentos subsidiados, en las tiendas de ropa reciclada (de segunda mano) o en las guaguas. En cambio, la carne de res, la leche, buena parte de las medicinas, la ropa nueva o los electrodomésticos tienen que pagarse en CUC y a precios estratosféricos. En la tienda Palco, por ejemplo, un litro de leche vale 3,17 dólares (2,28 euros) y una lata de atún, 4,27 (2,3 euros). El Estado pretende así recuperar el circulante en divisas y reducir el déficit público.

El problema es que sólo los cubanos que tienen contacto con el turismo, trabajan en empresas mixtas o reciben remesas de familiares en el exilio pueden acceder al CUC. La mayoría de la población sólo maneja pesos y pasa necesidades. “La brecha social es cada vez mayor y la desigualdad en el ingreso se ha duplicado”, comenta desde La Habana el economista Óscar Espinosa.

Cuando Raúl Castro permitió el acceso a ordenadores y telefonía móvil, muchos cubanos se encogieron de hombros. “¿De qué me sirve?”, pregunta Sara, que acaba de licenciarse como programadora de Informática y gana 400 pesos al mes. “¡Si ni siquiera puedo comprarme unos zapatos decentes! Una computadora vale 1.000 CUC, y el teléfono móvil, 60 CUC, más otros 121 la línea. Y a ti no te pagan en chavitos. ¿Cómo tú vas a comprar nada?”.

Carmelo Mesa-Lago, profesor de la Universidad de Pittsburgh, no duda en calificar de “desastrosa” la política económica cubana de los últimos 50 años, jalonada por “la colectivización y la centralización, siete cambios de organización económica, cuatro cambios de estrategia de desarrollo y destrucción del incentivo individual”. Sonados y costosos fracasos, como el empeño de Fidel Castro por lograr una zafra de 10 millones de toneladas de azúcar, criar vacas que dieran leche de sabores o establecer plantaciones de café a una altitud inadecuada, reflejan las arbitrariedades de un régimen que ha sobrevivido gracias a los subsidios externos.

La caída de la URSS puso fin a unas ayudas de 65.000 millones de dólares (cinco veces el Plan Marshall con el que EE UU contribuyó a la reconstrucción europea tras la II Guerra Mundial). Comenzó entonces un periodo de penurias del que la isla no ha salido todavía, a pesar de que Venezuela tomó el relevo, en 1999, como benefactor de Castro: Hugo Chávez suministra a Cuba el 57% de sus necesidades de combustible a precios preferenciales, que en 2008 supuso un subsidio de entre 2.500 y 3.000 millones de dólares.

Si en 1957 sólo Argentina y Uruguay superaban a Cuba en renta por habitante, hoy la economía cubana es la penúltima del continente, por delante de Haití. Incluso si se aceptaran las cifras del Gobierno, Cuba se situaría en el puesto 21º de América Latina. El régimen se niega a calcular la pobreza con los métodos homologados. Aún así, un 46% de los habitantes de La Habana se consideran pobres o muy pobres.

Los subterfugios estadísticos no pueden ocultar la dimensión del naufragio. Esqueletos de fábricas e ingenios abandonados salpican el paisaje de la isla. La Habana languidece con sus edificios en ruinas. Los mercados están desabastecidos y la gente resuelve la comida en el mercado negro.

En 1958, Cuba producía casi el 80% de los alimentos que consumía y era el principal proveedor de hortalizas de EE UU. Hoy es al revés: la isla importa más del 80% de la cesta básica y la mayor parte de los alimentos viene de EE UU, quinto socio comercial de Cuba a pesar del embargo decretado en 1962. Actualmente, más del 50% de las tierras cultivables están ociosas. En 2007, la producción de azúcar se hundió a 1,2 millones de toneladas, la peor desde 1903. El turismo, las remesas de los exiliados y los subsidios venezolanos compensan el déficit de la balanza comercial.

Del deterioro no se libran ni los logros esgrimidos por la revolución. Si bien en los años cincuenta Cuba ya tenía la menor mortalidad infantil y uno de los índices más altos de alfabetización de Latinoamérica, la revolución extendió la educación y la salud a las zonas rurales. Hoy, casi la mitad de los 60.000 médicos está en las “misiones internacionales” pagadas por Venezuela. No hay ambulancias y los medicamentos escasean. La educación tampoco se salva de la debacle, debido a la masiva deserción del profesorado. Según el diario oficial Granma, las escuelas e institutos de La Habana tienen un déficit de 8.576 profesores.

En teoría, Raúl Castro es consciente del desastre, pero su aparente espíritu reformista tiene el contrapeso de su hermano Fidel, que “boicotea los cambios”, señala Carmelo Mesa. La revolución que prometió libertad e igualdad ha construido “una sociedad totalitaria e injusta”, dice Espinosa.

By BARRY SCHWEID

AP Diplomatic Writer

South Florida Sun-Sentinel.com - link

 January 8, 2009

WASHINGTON

A human rights group is asking President-elect Barack Obama to end immediately a ban on most American travel to Cuba.

The nonpartisan Freedom House made the public recommendation Wednesday even as it sharply criticized Cuba’s human rights record and said Raul Castro had made only “nominal reforms” since succeeding his brother Fidel as Cuba’s president last February.

In his presidential campaign Obama proposed easing restrictions on family-related travel and said he was open to meeting Raul Castro without preconditions.

He also called for easing economic sanctions against Cuba, first imposed in 1960, if Havana “begins opening Cuba to meaningful democratic change.”

Current U.S. sanctions limit trade with Cuba to cash-only sale of U.S. farm products and medical supplies. Freedom House asked Obama to re-examine the embargo.

Ending the travel ban would expose Cubans to information about the outside world, Jennifer Windsor, executive director of Freedom House, said in a statement. She also called Cuba one of the most repressive countries in the world.

Next week, Cuba is due for harsh criticism in an annual Freedom House report on human rights worldwide.

The travel ban was imposed by President John F. Kennedy a year after the crisis over the presence of Russian missiles in Cuba. President Jimmy Carter let the ban lapse in 1977, but President Ronald Reagan reimposed it in 1982.

Violators could face criminal penalties of up to $250,000 and 10 years in prison.

Freedom House noted in its statement that the United States does not impose similar travel sanctions on Americans going to other countries with low freedom ratings, including Burma, Libya, North Korea, Somalia, Sudan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan.

Freedom House, founded in 1941, is an independent, non-governmental organization that supports expansion of democracy, in the world. It began monitoring the performance of governments worldwide in 1972.

 

Copyright 2009 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

By JORGE CASTAÑEDA

Published Dec 27, 2008

Link to original article in the Wall Street Journal

On the eve of its 50th anniversary, the Cuban Revolution — or what is left of it — can contemplate a bewildering paradox that sums up the results of one of Latin America’s most daring political feats of all time. Never before has Havana harvested diplomatic successes of the sort it has enjoyed in the last few months. Yet never before has the survival of the regime — and the Cuban people’s acceptance of the domestic sacrifices it demands of them — been so much in doubt.

This is not what Fidel and Raúl Castro, nor Che Guevara, had in mind when they swept down from the Sierra Maestra as 1958 ended, or when they began their triumphal march across the island, as 1959 began. It is in this contradictory context that the Obama administration will have to define its Cuba policy.

In recent weeks, Cuba has hosted Russian President Dmitry Medvedev and several Russian navy ships, rebuilding the relationship that collapsed in the early 1990s. It received the visits of Chinese leader Hu Jintao and Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. In Brazil last week, Cuba was admitted, at Mexico’s initiative, to the Rio Group, an ad hoc assembly of Latin American nations created in 1986 to support a negotiated peace in Central America. The group had traditionally considered representative democracy and respect for human rights to be preconditions for membership. Raúl Castro, who has managed to eliminate nearly all foreign scrutiny of human rights and democracy in Cuba, is preparing a trip to Vietnam, where he will tout the similarities between his ambitions for Cuba and Vietnam’s own stance: moving toward a market economy that provides a higher standard of living for its people without relinquishing an iota of power embedded in one-party rule.

Lastly, but perhaps most importantly, the Castro brothers have convinced almost every Latin American government that the main item on the region’s agenda with Barack Obama is the suppression of the U.S. embargo with the island. For a country that only five years ago was isolated in the hemisphere, condemned for human-rights violations by the United Nations and had its ties with the European Union virtually suspended, these are no minor accomplishments. But they seem rather pale when placed in the light of the enormous challenges and difficulties the Cuban people face in everyday life, now more than ever. Three of them deserve special mention.

First, of Cuba’s roughly $11 billion in yearly foreign-exchange revenue, the $2.5 billion from nickel exports is plunging because of falling commodity prices; an additional $2.5 billion from tourism is also dropping because of poor services and the world-wide fall in vacation spending. The remaining $6 billion springing from the export of so-called professional services, that is, the revenue generated abroad by renting doctors, nurses, teachers, security and intelligence personnel, as well as everyday handymen, to countries such as Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and now Paraguay, will also diminish, since the payer of last resort, Venezuela’s Hugo Chávez, has suffered a precipitous fall in his own oil-based income.

Secondly, this fall’s hurricanes wrought enormous damage in Cuba, mainly in housing and agriculture. Havana’s authorities once again showed their prowess in evacuating large swaths of the population, but the natural disasters also demonstrated in what shambles the country’s infrastructure and countryside find themselves in. Consequently, doubts about whether the Cuban people will continue to endure the adversities brought about by the shortfall in hard currency, the lack of foreign credit or investment, the damage done by the hurricanes and the overall disaster the economy lives in, seem greater today than at any other time, even than in the mid-1990s when the subsidy from the Soviet Union evaporated.

But most importantly, Fidel Castro’s unending battle for life leaves too many questions unanswered. No one knows how deep his younger brother’s intentions of economic reform are, since the elder Castro will not really countenance them while he still breathes. And no one can predict whether the Cuban people will continue to make the enormous sacrifices they have already faced, when it is no longer Fidel doing the asking, but rather his uncharismatic, technocratic and unpopular brother who must show up at protests and food riots and talk the people down.

Barack Obama will have to deal with this mess. He faces a tough choice. A growing number of Latin American governments are, out of conviction or opportunism, befriending Cuba. Only a full-fledged economic normalization of ties with the U.S. will alleviate Cuba’s suffering in the short and medium term. So which will it be: listening to Latin America but propping up the existing regime? Or negotiating political, if not regime, change with the Latin Americans, in exchange for normalizing economic ties?

Mr. Castañeda, a Global Distinguished Professor at New York University and fellow at the New America Foundation, was Mexico’s foreign minister from 2000 to 2003. He is the author of a biography of Ernesto “Che” Guevara and a history of Latin America’s guerrilla movements.

To navigate a sensible Cuba policy, Washington needs to separate truths from long-held fictions

By DAVID LUHNOW and JOSÉ DECORDOBA

Link to original article published in the Wall Street Journal

Dec 27, 2008

When Barack Obama takes the oath of office on Jan. 20, he will become the 11th U.S. president since Fidel Castro came to power on Jan. 1, 1959. Indeed, Fidel was already in charge when Mr. Obama was born. That the Cuban regime has lasted half a century just 90 miles from U.S. shores — and nearly two decades after the end of the Cold War — is remarkable. It is a testament to the comandante’s political genius, to the cruel effectiveness of totalitarian repression and to Washington’s ham-handed approach to the island.

It is also a testament to the power of myths. The Cuban regime survives partly because of the historical narrative that it has sold to the outside world and to its own people. This narrative could be summed up as a David versus Goliath story, with Cuba playing the role of the rock-slinging shepherd and the U.S. that of the heartless giant. Washington feeds this myth by maintaining an economic embargo on Cuba that gives the regime a ready-made excuse as to why the revolution has failed its people.

The U.S. holds its own myths about the Caribbean’s largest island, too. Chief among them is the old saw that the embargo gives Washington some leverage over events in Havana. The (rather wishful) thinking is that the U.S. should not unilaterally lift the trade restrictions because it can be an effective tool down the road in prompting the Cuban government to undertake reforms. That, too, is mostly wrong. If anything, many in Cuba believe Fidel Castro and his younger brother, Raúl, are terrified the U.S. will scrap the embargo and take away their best public-relations tool.

Separating truth from fiction could help Mr. Obama navigate a sensible policy toward Cuba, one that can help bring about change on the island. Cuba has a way of becoming an issue for the occupants of the White House whether they like it or not. Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Carter, Clinton and both Bushes all had to deal with Cuba as an unexpected item on the agenda. That may also be true for Mr. Obama, especially given the likelihood that Fidel Castro will die during Mr. Obama’s first term.

 

THE POWER OF STORIES

In many parts of the world, the story of the Cuban revolution goes like this: Fidel Castro overthrew a U.S.-backed dictatorship that had turned Cuba into a playground for the rich while the majority poor suffered abject poverty.

While there is a grain of truth to that story, much of it is wrong. Like all Latin American countries at the time of the revolution, Cuba had grinding poverty in some areas of the countryside. But relative to the rest of the region, Cuba was one of the most developed countries, with a large middle class and a well-unionized working class. Cuba’s infant mortality rate of 32 per 1,000 live births in 1957 was the lowest in Latin America and the 13th-lowest in the world, ahead of France, West Germany and Japan, according to U.N. data. In 1959, 76 out of every 100 Cubans could read and write, the fourth-highest literacy rate in Latin America. (In 2000, Cuba’s literacy rate was up to 96%, a statistic often used as evidence of Cuba’s advancement under the revolution, but Cuba’s high starting point is often overlooked.)

So why did so many Cubans support the revolution? Because most Cubans, rich and poor, despised dictator Fulgencio Batista, who had interrupted Cuban democracy through a military coup in 1952 and ruled with corruption and brutality. The revolution’s stated goal was the restoration of democracy.

The U.S., whose decision to end military support for Mr. Batista proved crucial to the success of the revolution, was the second government to recognize the new revolutionary government. Philip Bonsal, the newly appointed U.S. ambassador to Havana, was instructed to seek good relations. But relations quickly soured as Mr. Castro embraced the Soviets and nationalized U.S. and Cuban businesses without compensation.

 

NO FREEDOMS, BUT FREE HEALTH CARE

Another enduring myth surrounding the Cuban revolution is that despite its failures, it has managed to create health and educational systems that are the envy of the developing world.

To its credit, Cuba’s revolutionary government has given free education and health care to everyone. As a result, Cuba has produced more university graduates per capita than virtually any other Latin American nation. One such success story is María Zarragoitía, a 58-year-old professor at the prestigious University of Havana. Her mother was an illiterate Spanish immigrant who worked as a maid before the Revolution.

Unlike most Cubans, Ms. Zarragoitía can travel through academic exchanges and has two children who have studied abroad. She says her son in Mexico, who is studying for a master’s degree, feels better prepared than his peers there; however, her niece in France finds she is far behind. “That’s really not so surprising,” Ms. Zarragoitía says. “France is a first-world country and we are third world.”

One question whose answer could be crucial to the future of the country: Will students studying abroad return to Cuba, and to a system whose topsy-turvy economics mean that it’s financially much better to be employed as a waiter in a tourist hotel than as a doctor at a hospital or a professor at a university? Teacher salaries are so low that Cuba has a teacher shortage, forcing some schoolchildren to take “tele-classes,” where instruction is served up on videotape in a room full of noisy students. “They have a professor on hand in case anyone has any doubts about what we’re seeing on the video, but since no one even watches, no one ever has any doubts,” says an 18-year-old student named Jessica.

Cuba’s health-care system is in the same boat: universal access but very poor quality. Cuban doctors are considered well trained by Latin American standards. Foreigners who come to the island for treatment pay cash and suffer no lack of medicines, but ask any Cuban who has set foot in a hospital and he or she will tell you there are severe shortages of medicines and equipment; hospital patients often have to bring their own sheets. In operating rooms, sutures are in short supply and anesthesia is scarce. Medical care has gotten much worse, Cubans say, partly because as many as 30,000 doctors are working in Venezuela, the island’s main economic benefactor.

 

THE EMBARGO

To explain such shortcomings to its people, the Cuban government has an excellent excuse, provided by Washington: The U.S. trade embargo.

The U.S. trade embargo on Cuba was put in place by the Kennedy administration, not as a tool for regime change, but as punishment for Cuba’s expropriating U.S.-owned businesses and drawing closer to Moscow. But in the years since, the embargo has become a substitute for a comprehensive policy towards Cuba.

Cuba’s government wages a relentless campaign to convince its own people that the embargo, which the government calls a “blockade,” is the cause of their ills. While most Cubans don’t believe this myth, some do, as does much of the left in Latin America. “If the embargo is totally taken away, Castro would lose his biggest complaint, and his excuse for Cuba’s economic disaster,” says Brian Latell, a former CIA Cuba analyst.

The political costs of the embargo for the U.S. are enormous. No single issue poisons the well more for relations with Latin America. Every year, in what has become an embarrassing ritual for the U.S., an overwhelming majority of countries condemn the embargo at the United Nations. In the latest vote last November, the vote was 185-3. Only Israel and Palau joined the U.S.

But change might be hard to come by. Especially since the fall of the Soviet Union, the embargo has fed the myth held by hard-liners in Washington and Miami that squeezing the Castro regime just a bit more would lead the Cuban people to rise up and bring “regime change.” As a result, in 1992, 1996 and in 2004, the U.S. tightened sanctions — to no effect. The current global economic crisis might feed such thinking, as Cuba appears more economically vulnerable than ever.

 

CHANGE CUBANS CAN BELIEVE IN?

Mr. Obama’s election slogan struck a chord not only with American voters, but with many people in Cuba, too. They see a dynamic new U.S. president as their only current hope to improve their lives in some small measure — especially if he can end a bilateral confrontation that is frozen in Cold War ice.

Hopes for change within Cuba have dimmed in the past year since Raúl Castro, 77, took over the presidency from the ailing Fidel, 82. A few tentative steps toward making life easier for average Cubans, such as allowing Cubans to buy cellphones or to enter hotels previously reserved for foreign tourists, have not led to anything bolder.

The election of Mr. Obama — a young black man committed to reinventing politics — poses a major challenge to Cuba. It shatters the myth cultivated by Cuba’s ruling clique that the U.S. is a racist, exploitative country. Cuba is a majority black country with few blacks in positions of power.

During his campaign, Mr. Obama promised to loosen some restrictions in U.S. policy towards Cuba, allowing Cuban Americans to send more money to their relatives and visit them with more frequency.

While Raúl Castro has repeatedly said he is ready to talk with Mr. Obama, Fidel, whose thoughts on matters great and small are published every week in Cuba, has cautioned against expecting too much.

Some Latin American diplomats who deal with the Cubans say Havana appears ready to enter a dialogue with the U.S. They point to Raúl’s willingness to talk about exchanging five Cubans convicted of spying in the U.S. for political prisoners held in Cuban prisons. While it is difficult to see the U.S. agreeing to such an exchange, there is some room for diplomacy. The U.S. could allow family visits for the five spies, for instance, says one Brazilian diplomat. “I think Obama can make significant gestures at a low cost,” he says. Latin Americans expect to see the outline of a new policy towards Cuba by April, when Mr. Obama is scheduled to attend a meeting of hemispheric nations in Trinidad.

But few foresee major moves to lift the embargo. For one thing, Mr. Obama would have to risk considerable political capital to lift the embargo at a time when he has his plate full of major issues. He may have little to gain in return from the Cuban leadership, which until now has been able to muddle through thanks to billions of dollars in aid from Venezuela and credits from Iran, Russia and China.

After half a century of Cuban communism, Cubans may have to wait at least another few years for real change.

 

—Joel Millman contributed to this article.

Write to David Luhnow at david.luhnow@wsj.com

AG News

Dec 26, 2008

Link to original article

COSTA DO SAUIPE, Brazil (AP) - Cuban President Raul Castro told reporters he’s willing to discuss the 50-year-old U.S. trade embargo against Cuba with President-elect Barack Obama.

After arriving in northeastern Brazil for a summit of Latin American and Caribbean leaders, Castro said he’d discuss the blockade that prohibits nearly all U.S. commerce with the island if Obama wants to.

The Cuban leader also said Monday that it’s becoming more difficult to isolate Cuba and that the summit that starts Tuesday could result in a declaration condemning the blockade.