Noam Chomsky on the Cuban embargo and “democracy promotion”
Chomsky takes on the myths surrounding the US embargo on Cuba.
By Noam Chomsky on Monday, February 23rd, 2009 - 433 words.
What They Say:
“After 47 years… the unilateral embargo on Cuba has failed to achieve its stated purpose of ‘bringing democracy to the Cuban people’”.
Republican Senator Richard Lugar (R-IN), in his introduction to a report on Cuba by his senior staffer, Carl Meacham.
What They Mean:
Lugar carefully says “stated purpose.” He is an intelligent man, and surely knows that the actual purpose was completely different. No one familiar with US practices in the region or elsewhere can possibly believe that the goal of intensive US terror operations against Cuba and harsh economic warfare was intended to “bring democracy to the Cuban people.” That is just propaganda, unusually vulgar in this case.
The actual reasons for the terror and economic warfare were explained clearly at the very outset: the goal was to cause “rising discomfort among hungry Cubans” so that they would overthrow the regime (Kennedy); to “bring about hunger, desperation, and overthrow of the government” (Eisenhower’s State Department). The threat of Cuba, as Kennedy’s Latin American advisor Arthur Schlesinger advised the incoming president, is that successful independent development there might stimulate others who suffer from similar problems to follow the same course, so that the system of US domination might unravel. The liberal Democratic administrations were outraged over Cuba’s “successful defiance” of US policies going back to the Monroe Doctrine, which was intended to ensure obedience to the US will in the hemisphere. To a substantial extent, US terror and economic warfare has achieved its actual goals, causing bitter suffering among Cubans, impeding economic development, and undermining moves towards more internal democracy. Exactly as intended.
The case is an interesting one. For decades a large majority of Americans have wanted to establish normal relations with Cuba. In more recent years, substantial US business interests (agribusiness, energy, others) are in favor of that too. Of course, the US is entirely isolated in the world in maintaining the embargo; at the UN it can only garner support, reflexively, from Israel and a few Pacific dependencies. But the policy persists, and in fact became harsher under the Democrats in the 1990s in order to cause Cubans to suffer more after Russian assistance evaporated.
It is one of the occasional illustrations of how state interests prevail over business interests; and the will of the population is as usual irrelevant. More than is usually recognized, the conduct of international affairs resembles the Mafia. The Godfather does not tolerate defiance, even from some small storekeeper. And for good reasons: the rot can spread, to use the terminology of high-level US planners (or Schlesinger, in the case cited).
Noam Chomsky
(+20 rating, 22 votes)
Loading ...17 Comments
Leave a Reply
Articles by this author
-
The Radical Intellectual
The world is too complex for history to repeat, but there are nevertheless lessons to keep in mind. There is no shortage of tasks for those who choose the vocation of critical intellectuals, whatever their station in life. They can seek to sweep away the mists of carefully contrived illusion and reveal the stark reality. They can become directly engaged in popular struggles, helping to organize the countless Joe Stacks who are destroying themselves, and maybe the world, and to join them in leading the way the way to a better future
-
Chomsky on what we can do for Palestine
The media and commentators -- unanimously, to my knowledge -- evaded the central fact about the war: the issue was not whether Israel had a right to defend itself from rockets, but whether it had the right to do so by force. It surely did not, because the US-Israel knew that peaceful means were available but refused to pursue them: accepting Hamas’s offer to renew the cease-fire, which Hamas had observed even though Israel did so only partially
-
Chomsky on Gaza freedom flotilla
The siege of Gaza itself does not have the slightest credible pretext. It was imposed by the US and Israel in January 2006 to punish Palestinians because they voted "the wrong way" in a free election, and it was sharply intensified in July 2007 when Hamas blocked a US-Israeli attempt to overthrow the elected government in a military coup, installing Fatah strongman Muhammad Dahlan. The siege is savage and cruel, designed to keep the caged animals barely alive so as to fend off international protest, but hardly more than that. It is the latest stage of long-standing Israeli plans, backed by the US, to separate Gaza from the West Bank
-
Globalisation marches on
So we have another significant shift in global power: from the general population to the principal architects of the global system, a process aided by the undermining of functioning democracy in the United States and other of the Earth's most powerful states. The future depends on how much the great majority is willing to endure, and whether that great majority will collectively offer a constructive response to confront the problems at the core of the state capitalist system of domination and control.
-
The decline of U.S. democracy
The Supreme Court decision raises significant new barriers to overcoming the serious crisis of health care, or to addressing seriously such critical issues as the looming environmental and energy crises
-
"Hopes And Prospects": Chomsky's Amnesty International Lecture
Returning to the US, the civilizing impact of the activism of the '60s naturally elicited efforts to restore order and discipline. One component has been the state-corporate economic programs, which, particularly since the Reagan years, have broken the link between economic growth and social and economic health. Under these programs of financialization of the economy, real wages for the majority have stagnated while the limited benefits system declined, and inequality has soared to unprecedented heights
-
Containing the "virus" of decency in the Obama era
In thinking about international affairs, it is useful to keep in mind several principles of considerable generality and import. The first is the maxim of Thucydides: the strong do as they wish, and the weak suffer as they must. It has an important corollary: every powerful state relies on specialists in apologetics, whose task is to show that what the strong do is noble and just, and if the weak suffer it is their fault. In the contemporary West, these specialists are called "intellectuals," and with only marginal exceptions, they fulfill their assigned task with skill and self-righteousness, however outlandish the claims, a practice that traces back to the origins of recorded history
-
Militarizing Latin America
Establishing US military bases in Colombia is only one part of a much broader effort to restore Washington’s capacity for military intervention. There has been a sharp increase in US military aid and training of Latin American officers, focusing on light infantry tactics to combat “radical populism” – a concept that sends shivers up the spine in the Latin American context.
-
Noam Chomsky on the Cuban embargo and "democracy promotion"
Chomsky takes on the myths surrounding the US embargo on Cuba.
-
Noam Chomsky on the US, Israel, and Gaza
Noam Chomsky takes on Ehud Barak and discusses Israeli-US objectives in the Gaza offensive.
-
Noam Chomsky on Barack Obama
Chomsky takes on the President-elect.
-
Noam Chomsky on the Republican electoral campaign
Noam Chomsky explains why the Republican campaign has become so base.
Noam is of course correct in one sense, but is in danger of oversimplification and anachronism. True enough, during the Cold War, after the missile crisis, when it became apparent that an invasion of Cuba was impossible, US policy makers opted for a policy aimed at causing as much hardship in Cuba as possible to prevent the spread of the 'rot' and to make it as expensive as possible for the USSR to support its distant ally. However, times have changed and policy planners no longer see the island as the threat it once was. They also see that the policy of trying to isolate Cuba has not only failed but is also now damaging to other US interests in the region and beyond. Lugar represents a more subtle approach to Cuba that emphasises these other aspects of US interests above that of merely desiring the extermination of the Castro regime. Implicit in the Lugar document is acceptance that for the time being the Castro government is going to be the government of Cuba whether the US continues to be beastly towards it or not and therefore in the context of the current siutation in Latin America it would be better now to engage with Cuba than not. The ultimate goal of US policy remains the same – transform Cuba into a liberal democratic free market state- it is just the means towards it that are changing.
The United States government (and most of the US mass media) assumes that it has an inherent right to determine what type of social, economic and political institutions the Cuban people ought to have. This imperial framework goes back to the early 19th century. Anything that promotes Cuban self determination and independence has been considered a threat by those who have power in te United States. Not a single US administration in over 200 years has recognized the right of the people of Cuba to have whatever set of institutions they may wish to establish. That is why the differences among US politicians is over the method to be used to impose whatever it is that American power thinks is best for the "natives".
I don't think Noam is reductionist. He's hitting the nail on the head. The 'missile crisis' was easily avoidable, simply stop aggression against Cuba, open trade, etc, and they would not have felt threatened hence moving towards the USSR for protection. Don't forgot Fidel wanted negotiations, not antagonism.
Moreover, Kruschev offered to Kennedy a deal: pull your Jupiter missile system out of Turkey (right on the Russian border), and we will pull our missiles out of Cuba. It was ignored.
The threat was always of independent nationalism and isolated economic development. Not this Cold War propaganda.
I was around in the early days and there was a little-reported phenomenon that might have been a primary concern of those in power. Black Americans were inspired by the ascension to power of an explicitly anti-racist government in the hemisphere. From academics to entrepreneurs to entertainers, they were organizing to maximize contact with, and hopefully influence from, the Cuban anti-racist mobilization.
The preconditions for ending the blockade have shifted from ending support for liberation movements in South America and Africa, to ending alliance with the Soviet Union, to today's embracing neoliberalism, Cuba's successes in building a post-racist society continue to threaten. A recent African American traveller has written of the impact of seeing on the streets people who looked like him who were not wary.
A small thing? Or a huge thing?
If we want to promote democracy,i really want,we have to promote Cuba.Why there is still socialism in Cuba while most powerful communistic countries collapsed?Because Cuba,in compare with USSR,was and still remain in socialistic leaders position,it is modern,free and democratic country.
Chomsky is the outcome of living a life in deep academic thought without ever going out and experiencing the real world. Guy lives in lala land
BOB is the outcome of living a life in very little thought at all.
HaHa,
just saw this,
I agree, I work hard for my living.
Better than being a moral hypocrite and supporting Pol Pot in Cambodia.
When Orwell spoke about Intelligentsia that supported fascistic and totalitarian regimes he was talking about Chomsky!
Cuba like other countries where it´s believed that there is no democracy, have a democratic form in its purest essence. Primordial nature of a democracy is always illiberal, that is why governments like the Cuban, Venezuelan and Bolivian survives. And parasitize to coast on many sectors of their own societies that don´t commune their beliefs.
They use paradigms of an omniscient, omnipresent and divine
"popular will". Allowing with this, them to abuse civil rights and guarantees.
Ensuring through this “popular will” that their political desires will be satisfied, and with thus its new power structures and its political and “intellectuals” elites.
FrancesC, I don't think anyone really knows what you are talking about, not to be rude, maybe you should write in your native tongue
I did understand. It just requires simple deduction, which is enabled by thinking. People who focus on grammar structure as if it were some sort of indicator of coherent thought are just being ethnocentric and ironically, this is an evidence of their lack of coherent thinking.
The American Cuba embargo that is still being imposed against Cuba, is actually part of a much broader system of embargo's and trade restrictions that the non-communist world has imposed under the American leadership. This most rigid form of economic warfare was used against Cuba, China and North-Vietnam and North Korea. From 1950 untill the early seventies communist China has dealt with the US China embargo, an embargo of the Cöordinating Committee (Cocom, 17 developed capitalist countries) against communist countries, the even stricter China-embargo of the China Committee (untill 1957)and an UN strategic embargo.
In march 1955 the US taskforce for defense policy has written that the economic pressure on China should be continued. That would "contribute to tension in the country, that would finally lead to a breakdown of China". Former American undersecretary for the far East, Walter Robertson, also said that "The US must dominate Asia for indefinite time and form a military threat to communist China untill it falls apart internally". So this was the same goal as the American Cuba embargo had, end the communist administration and install a capitalist regime (nationalist regime of Chiang Kai Shek in the case of China). I think the wordwide economic warfare against Cuba in the past, had the same effects and goals as the one that was directed against communist China, with one big difference, Cuba is still suffering under an almost complete American embargo.
Even when China suffered the worst famines since the establishement of the PRC, the complete America China embargo wasn't eased. The wordwide economic warfare against Cuba, China, North Vietnam and North Korea was a carefully planned policy to prevent these countries from modernising, industrialising and improving the standard of living in their countries, so they would stay backward extremely poor third world countries.
Cuba is still suffering enormously under the American embargo. Countries like Cuba, North Vietnam and China were first exploited by colonialism, then by devastating wars, and then had to deal with embargo's to affect a breakdown of the countries. I really hope the terrible human suffering of the Cuban people will soon be lifted.
I agree with your point about the effects of colonialism in Vietnam, and China, but embargos of either country had zero effect. China is too big and Vietnam has always had China. Neithier one of these countries can be, could be, or ever would be affected by an embargo. They could always get what they needed to survive. As far as putting pressure on the people to revolt or change their government, this didn't work there and will not work in Cuba.. ever.
God bless Cuba.but China?it is socialistic country?they exploits working class more then any capitalist can dream of.communists who runs capitalism?
[...] is that the American business community is actually in favor of lifting the embargo. As Chomsky describes it (in a great summary of US-Cuba relations for the last 50 years, by the way): It is one of the [...]