Times have changed in Cuba, but softly the struggle continues

The Cuban people still hold their independence dear.

On my first day in Cuba, in 1967, I waited in a bus queue that was really a conga line. Ahead of me were two large, funny women resplendent in frills of blinding yellow; one of them had an especially long bongo under her arm. When the bus arrived, painted in Cuba's colours for its inaugural service, they announced that the gringo had not long arrived from London and was therefore personally responsible for this breach in the American blockade. It was an honour I could not refuse.

The bus was a Leyland, made in Lancashire, one of 400 shipped to Cuba in defiance of Washington, which had declared war on the revolution of Fidel Castro. With "The Internationale" and "Love Me Do" played to a bongo beat - the Beatles having been "admitted to the revolution" - we lurched through the crooked streets of Havana. Such a fond memory now accompanies me on my return to Cuba; yet, looking back at what I wrote then, I find I used the word "melancholy" more than once. For all the natural warmth of Cubans, the hardship of their imposed isolation left smiles diminished and eyes averted once the music had stopped.

Beyond the nationalised American department stores (the windows empty except for Chinese electric fires of which Cubans had no need) and the flickering necklace of lights at the almost deserted port, there was the silhouette of an American spy ship, the USS Oxford, policing Cuba's punishment. In 1968, the revolution added its own folly by summarily banning all small businesses, including the paladares, Havana's lively bars and restaurants. The Soviet era had begun.

Spirit of independence

The needs of survival now underwrote a morose presence of Russian advisers. Cuba's main crop, sugar cane, went almost entirely to the Soviet Union in a life-saving deal struck in 1961 by Che Guevara, who had little time for the Soviet version of communism. The urgency was made clear by the then US secretary of state, Dean Rusk, who the following year wondered if "this is the time to eliminate the Cuban problem by actually eliminating the island". The CIA's relentless terrorism against Cuba included numerous attempts to assassinate Castro and the blowing up of a Cuban airliner with the loss of 73 lives. Three US administrations tightened the vice of the blockade so successfully that the calorific intake of Cubans in the 1990s dropped by a third. Today, Cuba is banned from buying nearly half of all world-class drugs in a market dominated by the US. A catastrophe has been averted, says the American Association of World Health, only because of the extraordinary priority the Cuban government has given public health. For me, to arrive in a Latin American society without grinding poverty filling the eye is almost a shock.

“Accelerating the hard features of Cuba," a US diplomat once said, memorably, "will be the measure of our success, not theirs." He meant the authoritarian line handed down from the top, and the petty restrictions and impediments to serious dissent. When they could, many Cubans left. These days, the hard features are softer, perhaps changed beyond recognition. The educated young have made their disaffection known. Raúl Castro, who formally replaced his elder brother as president in 2008, says the bureaucracy to which he has devoted his life "has been tied for years to obsolete criteria". He wants to reduce the presidency to two five-year terms, a proposal once unthinkable.

With the Soviet times preserved in the rusting shells of missiles strewn on the bluff next to Che Guevara's house, Cuba seems determined to reclaim the independence that was its original heroic achievement: the precursor of contemporary revolutions, however imperfect. Proudly manipulating the gears of his canary-yellow 1952 Chevy convertible, Juan Ramón Ramírez pointed out the cardiac institute where his life was saved, free of charge. In most of Latin America, he would probably be dead now.

Off the leash

Tourism has long replaced sugar, with the benefit of jobs and hard currency and the odium of a separate currency. When I first came, Havana's great cathedral of a hotel, the Nacional, was so bereft in its echoing emptiness that I was offered Errol Flynn's room - 235 - and a laundry service that entailed a man in a dark suit and shades driving my shirts somewhere in a mighty 1940 Cadillac LaSalle. Today, the great teak doors and Corinthian columns overlook Europeans with neat rucksacks. A jukebox still plays and there is a list of "famously nostalgic" rooms: Mafia 211, Nat King Cole 218, Ava Gardner and Frank Sinatra 225, Fred Astaire 228, Johnny Weissmuller (Tarzan) 232. That I, an inveterate swimmer, lapped the very same pool as the great Weissmuller, one of the fastest swimmers of all time, compensates for missing out on Errol Flynn's art deco playpen.

The Cuban writer Leonardo Padura Fuentes describes his country's attraction as a "magnetism, sometimes morbid, sometimes admiring", leaving no one indifferent. Radios that crackle, a new airport terminal with birds nesting, the early-morning snores of an official at passport control and the palpable ambivalence of pride and frustration belong to a revolution that sends tens of thousands of doctors across the world for the sole purpose of helping other human beings: an epic internationalism.

It is the idea of Cuba having slipped the leash that still threatens America's time-warped sense of its own power and self-given right to define other societies. As Richard Gott points out in his fine book Cuba: a New History, modern Cuba's creator, el máximo líder Fidel, in swapping his slogan from "socialism or death" to "a better world is possible", has ensured that there will be little change when he dies: regardless of machinations across the Florida Straits, change has already taken place.

58 comments

Jobster O'Toole's picture

When is Cuba going to have another revolution and get rid of this disgusting nepotistic dictatorship that's held the country to ransom for fifty years, meanwhile blaming everyone else?

If this family of thugs genuinely wanted to end the embargo all they'd have to do is allow another party to run against them in an election. Oh, and maybe cut back on jailing anyone who opposes them might be a nice gesture as well.

Pilger, you're a disgrace for lacking the integrity t0 slam these murderous thugs.

thomas vesely's picture

read up on life in Cuba.
better values and fewer shooters.

GThommo's picture

This article is risible. I went to Havana last year and it looks like a war zone – there are whole districts in the city centre where the houses are completely deserted and derelict. Most of them are beautiful architecturally too – if Cuba would modernise and welcome foreign investment they would be worth £500,000 as holiday homes, instead they have weeds growing out of them.

People have very little political or economic freedom. There is nothing in the shops. You walk in to ‘department stores’ that display metal piping next to tinned fruit next to sun-bleached bottles of washing-up liquid with the label peeling off. It’s utterly bizarre and tragic, a modern dystopia. I went to the supermarket but was informed they had no bread or milk. Pilger is right on one thing: the only success story is tourism – the economic model of which is pretty much the antithesis of all things Castro.

Yes, the American embargo causes damage and its bullying policy is completely out of step given Cuba is now irrelevant in geopolitical terms. They should ease up immediately. But that doesn’t mean Cuba isn’t a dump that has brought almost all of its problems upon itself. It doesn’t make anything, so it can’t sell anything. It does not have an economy.

Gwyn Williams's picture

It is undeniable that a lot of dissident cubans have fled to Florida, rebel against restrictions on free speech and want access to the american dream of unrestrained consumerism, which is peddled 24 hours dailly by US TV and radio across the Florida Strait. It is also true that the Revolution moved against small traders and business, an error repeated by the FSLN Revolution in Nicaragua during the 1980´s: fear of private accumulation (and power) is a common feature of popular revolutions.

It is also undeniable that the Revolution gives free access to pretty good health care and education to the cuban people. Outside La Havana, these same also have access to decent housing, as well as full employment, albiet poorly paid. As JP says, you don´t see the grinding poverty and humilliation of large swathes of the population that you see in the rest of Latin America.

One wonders at the above hysterical tirades against JP and the Cuban Revolution. They swarm up at the slightest provocation, as if automatically programmed, orquestrated perhaps by anti castro cuban associations in Miami or Washington, or Pinochetistas in Santiago de Chile. Certainly the language rarely changes: it´s only democracy if it´s our democracy, controlled by capital and the middle classes, never by popular will.

In Latin America, these elites have depended on the peasant populations not being revolutionary. Rather they have been small c conservative, doffing their sombreros to the ruling elite and waiting for the hand out. This social configuration is changing. The urban centres in L.A.are sucking in the rural populations at an accelerating rate, and in the urban centres, the poor peasants are politicized. They learn to resent and hate the local rich, and cynical foreigners who come in search of cheap labour and resources and fatter profits, with their pious sermons about better governance, transparency and democracy. Increasingly, popular support in L.A. is going to militant nationalist movements, Chavez in Venezuela, Ortega in Nicaragua, Corea in El Ecuador, Morales in Bolivia, Lula and his succesor in Brazil, Lugo in Paraguay, etc. Is this a sustainable trend ?, Who knows ?. What is interesting is what will come after. Also what is being cooked up in Washington and Brussels to contain, if not subvert, it.

bearrrwillie's picture

Cuba is a very divisive and polarising subject and trying to have a rational and balanced conversation is never easy. My earlier post was an attempt to do that where I clearly admitted no nation is perfect and all have failings and short comings and Cuba is no exception. Why is it then that this small, isolated and besieged island nation can garner such fury and outrage from some quarters? Most often from people in the US. Is it any more a sinful or repressive a nation than say China, Vietnam or Saudi Arabia. Yet the US is very happy to engage, trade and in the case of Saudi Arabia have a military relationship and have US troops based there. Each have brutally repressive systems and in my view probably much more repressive than the Cuban system. Why is Cuba such a different case then? Why the hypocrisy? It can only be one of pride. The US has lost historical face and just cannot accept that a small island nation can stand up to all that the US has thrown at it for 50 years. Of course the US bears some culpability for the current situation in Cuba, that grew out of a dysfunctional colonial like relationship in the past. President Kennedy was highly critical of the unquestioning support of the Batista dictatorship and said this; " "We let Batista put the U.S. on the side of tyranny, and we did nothing to convince the people of Cuba and Latin America that we wanted to be on the side of freedom".

I would not mind if there was some honest debate here but the Cuba haters just throw about labels,names and cheap shots. Do I like all I see about the Cuban regime no I do not and it has many failings. Yet it is deeply disappointing to see no willingness for an honest debate about the hypocrisy surrounding this small nation. It is not about ideology, but about the wounded pride of a super power. What is needed is more honest, introspective and circumspect comment like that from President Kennedy above. This way we can move on and have a grown up conversation about Cuba and its place in the world.

Mr Danger's picture

"I clearly admitted no nation is perfect and all have failings and short comings and Cuba is no exception."

You really have got out on a limb there - admitting that Cuba is not perfect. What an impressive concession!

Cuba is not all that complicated. It is the last dictatorship in Latin America. It is one of the last outposts of a failed ideology from another era. It is a totalitarian state where even the most basic of human freedoms are denied. It is a police state.

Lox's picture

Hi Praetorian, did you know that one of the reasons for the low AIDS level in Cuba was the policy of segregating HIV positive Cubans-many of them soldiers returning from Africa-from the rest of the population?

Gwyn, you're on the ball as usual. Anyone sceptical about the benefits of a poor society where half the population is unemployed because of the government's adherence to a quaint 19th century theory of capital is clearly in the pay of anti Castroites.

As far as your statement that "it's only democracy if it's our democracy" is concerned, that's kind of academic in this case, isn't it? It might be relevant if Cubans got to choose their government every few years. Shame they don't, I hope you agree. Even if they were to decide to vote in a neoliberal pro-US party. After all, it's happened in plenty of other countries that managed to drop communism in the dustbin.

tappy's picture

It might be worth taking into consideration that Cuba's annual production of fruit and vegetables is growing at 250% a year. So to the person who said they had no food in the supermarkets, it's probably because they sell their own organic produce at small markets within the community. They are the most self-sufficient and sustainable country in the world. Even at the height of the 2 WW the UK only produced roughly 10% of it owns food, whereas Cuba produces 80%, which is mostly organic.
The Cuban government gave 80% of state-owned land to private shareholder enterprises, clearly a large step in the right direction. It is obvious that freedom from coercion in any society is of paramount importance, and that Cuba does not have the most brilliant record on this. However, I do feel that without the embargo the country would have opened up both economically and socially. Moreover, Cuba, in their Healthcare system, and food program, are a shining example to the world what human resilience and innovation can do. I think maybe our Western societies infatuated with consumerism and shiny twit-machines could learn a lot from the Cuban people, and even some of the government policies. Maybe we could learn to be less individualistic, and take care of the plant.

Just a thought.

Mr Danger's picture

"They are the most self-sufficient and sustainable country in the world."

They lived off Soviet oil charity for decades, and now live off Venezuelan oil charity. The subsidy is worth billions per year. How is this "self sufficient"?

"It is obvious that freedom from coercion in any society is of paramount importance, and that Cuba does not have the most brilliant record on this."

"not the most brilliant record". Such withering criticism! Don't you think you've been a bit hard on the poor Castro monarchy?

Nixon is Lord's picture

It isn't even that there's only one party; it's ridiculous that it's a cult of personality around someone dead (and middle class and not even Cuban) Che Guevara and Fidel and now his brother. With all this wonderful education and healthcare (according to you)are there no other Cubans who are capable of doing the minimum work associated with one-party states? Or is Cuba so pitifully dependent on Castro psychologically?
Any progressive place has moved beyond rule (and I mean actual rule, not the vestigial and irrelevant silliness of constitutional monarchies) of one person and his family. To hear the rhetoric of "revolution" and "social democracy" from places like India and Cuba with one family in charge generation after generation just looks pitiful and grotesque.

Latest tweets