CUBA COMES FIRST
Foreword
It has finally been announced that the VI Congress of the Communist Party of Cuba (CPC) will be held on April of 2011 - that is, nine years behind schedule. This has been welcome news in the ranks of the sole party.
The official information arrived with the publication of a document titled Guideline Project for the Economic and Social Policy, a document that as per the country’s leadership’s wishes, shall be the basis for the work sessions of the abovementioned supreme organ of the Cuban communists.
It must be said, however, that the citizens do not wholly grasp the extent of the decisions to be made by the Congress, since this text includes reforms that are already or will be underway come April. Besides, it has been formally announced that the Council of Ministers has already approved the “Comprehensive Economic Projections for the 2011-2015 Period”.
Curiously enough, a body that calls itself the “Commission on Economic Policy of the VI Party Congress drafted the Guideline Project”. This fact seems to reflect the attitude the Castro regime has assumed towards this new event. That is, they act on behalf of the upcoming meeting although the delegates have not been elected, and the beginning of the sessions is still five months away. .
Of course, we, as well as all other Cubans that so wish to do, are entitled to expressing our concerns about the contents of this document and about the current and future policy of our country. Upon doing so, we are simply exercising the freedoms of expression and opinion granted to us by article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and on article IV of the American Declaration of the Rights and Duties of Man, both documents approved by the Republic of Cuba.
Additionally, we must state that in this specific case, the totalitarian regime in Havana has expressly and exceptionally recognized that us Cubans are authorized to discuss the Guidelines Project and for these purposes a project known as the people’s debate process is currently underway. It is scheduled to last until the end of February. As it is stated on the December 1st editorial of the Granma newspaper, this process recognizes the “possibility that each and everyone express his or her point of view, without limitations, and differing in his or her opinion if it’s the case”. The official outlet of the sole party adds, “Nobody’s opinion shall remain without expression; furthermore, no one shall be prevented from expressing his or her opinion...partaking in the destiny of the country is a right of each and every Cuban.”
Well, as Cubans, and as part of our people, we differ, and we shall certainly express our criteria without limitations.
The above notwithstanding, it’s not irrelevant to remember that similar words were said regarding the manifesto issued by the Communist Party of Cuba in 1997 with the occasion of its V Congress. However, as everybody knows, this did not prevent the signors of La patria es de todos (The Homeland Belongs to All) from being imprisoned precisely for expressing their opinions on the matter.
Those of us currently issuing this document have been imprisoned for years because we differ from the regime and state it openly. Of course we have no intention of being guests of the state again. What’s more, our primary goal is that all political prisoners are once and for all freed, thus ending the distorted and protracted process begun months ago. This process seems to entail the necessary exile of the freed prisoners, as the only remaining under custody are those that have rejected the option of departing Cuba.
But although our goal is not to once again join the always-dignified Cuban Political Presidium, we are not willing to surrender our right to freely express our thoughts, and we assume the consequences that the exercise of this unalienable right may carry. For this reason we are expressing our opinions on these important matters to the national and international public opinion, of which we ask to bear witness that we are limiting these opinions to matters that are of our interest, as we are Cubans, and as they are of interest to our homeland.
The Monothematic Nature of the Event
Upon commenting on the topic of the upcoming congress, we must first state the obvious: we are not Communists, and we do not abide by the obsolete Marxist-Leninist doctrines that, at least in theory, are still guiding the direction of the country. Neither do we accept the statements issued by the Cuban regime in which they state that this event will represent “the people in its entirety”, a statement that we consider rhetorical in nature, and in very poor taste.
The sole party is an elitist organization, made up by less than a tenth of the Cubans living in the island. This means that the vast majority of the adult population will not take part in the selection of the upcoming Congress delegates.
Besides the much publicized intention to allow non-militants to participate in the “people’s debates” so that their “opinions are recorded and take into account” cannot obscure the fact that this process will be limited exclusively to economic matters and that it will be subject to the direction and control of a team of activists especially selected for this purpose. These activists will also be tasked with assessing, as they see fit, the value of the proposals submitted by the citizens.
It is, therefore, an anti-democratic process, marred in its origin. As if the above were not enough, this vague document is purposely drafted in a vague yet technical language, and its extension is likely to discourage the general population from engaging in its analysis. Most likely, this combination will serve as an effective method to have the document be mechanically approved.
Even worse, this is not the first time such statements are made. We don’t need to go back in time for more than a third of a century (to the time of the I Party Congress) and instead we can focus on the process for the IV Congress, which was preceded by a similar invitation and was arbitrarily and abruptly ended amidst a sea of criticism from the citizenry. The preliminary discussion for Congress V was preceded by stricter controls, and, as it was stated before, the authors of La patria es de todos (The Homeland Belongs to All) were imprisoned.
And a similar experience took place after a July 26, 2007 speech by Raúl Castro. In it, Castro made a highly critical assessment of the economic problems Cuba faced. The people were summoned to speak bravely and sincerely and the authorities announced they had collected more than a million opinions. In 2009 the regime asked the workers of the island to weigh in on the possibility of rising the retirement age – by five years, no less. It is known that on this last occasion the people’s objections were ignored, as they were overwhelmingly contrary to the project. The changes were implemented as stated from the beginning and nothing is known about the opinions stated during the process.
In this context, the statement that this will be a “Congress for all of the militants and all of the people” is nothing more than a propaganda statement, tinged with demagoguery and populism, but, as in all the cases listed before, lacking in weight and credibility.
As it has been expressed, the “sole topic” of the party congress will be the “analysis of the updating of the country’s economic and social model.” It is true that the economy is essential, and that, given the catastrophic situation currently affecting our country, the attention of all Cubans is truly needed, particularly that of those in government and with the power to make decisions affecting these matters.
But it is also true that an effort to solve the myriad economic problems facing our archipelago without delving into political matters is a moot endeavor and shows a true lack of respect for its citizenry. Just to state one example, how can there be a clear idea of the means necessary to create favorable external conditions leading to our way out of the deep national crisis if we do not evaluate which are the political measures necessary for widening collaboration between developed nations and Cuba?
Besides, although the economy is the only topic discussed in the document, it is done so in a way that is suspiciously limited. Certain essential matters are left unmentioned - corruption, for example. A true cancer eating away at today’s Cuban society, corruption, it is obvious, must be stared down decidedly, otherwise not even the best intentions will suffice, as any effort, however well meaning, will be lost.
Experience, however, shows us that the current leadership has not solved previous scandals, such as the one that took place in the Mazorra Psychiatric Hospital (which caused the demise of dozens of patients) or of the Civil Aeronautics Institute (in which, according to unofficial sources, millions of dollars were stolen) or the Río Zaza enterprise scandal, whose main suspect is a foreigner with close ties to the Cuban leadership, or the nickel production scandal in Moa, which has led to dozens of arrests. These are only four specific cases.
But not even now, in preparation for Congress VI, is the subject discussed. The only allusion done in the Guidelines Project is a veiled mention of the principle stating that “those deciding are not the same as those negotiating” (point number 67), which is obviously nothing more than a mechanism, most likely useless, to try to limit the damages caused by corruption.
Although the hierarchy of the Castro regime intends to limit the discussion to the economy, it must be said that the social and political problems affecting the country are just as pressing.
As a matter of fact, the hierarchy seems to wish that the congress session in a vacuum of sorts, without dealing upfront with such important topics as the recently started ration card reduction process - a true tragedy for hundreds of thousands of Cuban families.
Furthermore, important political matters have also been left out of the Congress’ agenda. These are, however, important issues in which the regime has played a less negative role when compared to earlier times. This includes the unprecedented negotiations with the Cuban Catholic Church and the subsequent release of political prisoners, a process that although slow, seems to be eventually aimed at all conscience prisoners and most of the remaining political prisoners. Anyone would be forgiven for thinking, strange as it may seem, that the Cuban government is ashamed of its participation that is clearly positive and that is the result of its own initiative.
In addition, we must remember that this project to limit the Congress to strictly economic matters does not even match the statements issued nearly a year ago by the chief of the army, Raúl Castro, and highlighted by Granma on its headlines as being “The True Congress, one in which All Communists and all the People Discuss All the Problems.” But as we can see, great efforts have been made to make the semantics adjust “all the problems” to the purely economic subjects issued by decree.
The same official newspaper recorded the words of the Head of State when he stated that “[He] Had not been elected to restore capitalism in Cuba or to hand over the Revolution. I was elected to defend, maintain and continue the pursuit of perfection for Socialism, not its destruction.” Of course we cannot agree with these statements. We consider the public duty of every office holder, let alone one of this importance, to be not the application of a doctrine or an ideal, but rather the service to the people and the endeavor to solve, by all means available, its problems and improve its situation.
Upon analysis of another side of the same equation, we must express our surprise at the intent of the current historical leaders of Cuba to set guidelines for the April event, thus limiting beforehand the topics that it may debate.
According to the century old Communist procedure and the principles of “democratic centralism” stated by Lenin, the Congress is autonomous. The bylaws themselves state that “the Congress is the supreme organ of the party and it decides on the most important political issues, the organization and the activities of the party and its decisions are final, binding and mandatory for all of the party” (Article 43).
In this context, it will remain to be seen if the upcoming April event will accept the limitation that the Party-State is trying to impose on it, or if it will insist on exercising all the powers that the bylaws confer upon it give the aforementioned nature of supreme organ. This includes not only the extension of the debate to matters of primordial importance, but also, among others, the election of a new Central Committee, a key process that, it seems, the Castro brothers and their inner sanctum seem to want to reserve for the Party Conference, a smaller organ that will session after the Congress, and that according to announcements, will cover “internal organization and other matters of national importance.”
This second event shall be even smaller in the number of participants, thus increasing the chances the party directives will have to influence and manipulate the delegate selection process – and therefore the voting of the future Central Committee.
A Bit of History
We do acknowledge that a positive aspect of the current Guidelines Project (compared to the document issued in anticipation of the previous –fifth- congress of the sole party) is the lesser emphasis made on historical matters.
Incredible as it may seem, four fifths of the document issued in 1997 were aimed at providing the communist version of history, with all it entails in terms of manipulations and omissions.
The current document contains these and other topics, but they are mentioned solely in its introduction, which is less than two and a half pages. Of course, focusing attention on the current situation and on future perspectives is the only rational and admissible alternative for a document of this kind, which is supposed to be a guide for the ruling party in its future activities
However, it is always necessary to remember history’s lessons. It is known that those who fail to do so are almost always condemned to repeat their mistakes. The current approach of the Castro leadership is lacking in any – however minimal – self-criticizing analysis of Cuba’s trajectory during the past half century. In order to compensate for this omission, and for us to gain in our understanding and learning of history, we must state that the balance of more than fifty years of the Castro regime is mostly negative.
Even in the economic sphere, which is the focus of the Guidelines Project the results have been disastrous. The current regime has virtually destroyed the sugar industry, the backbone of Cuba’s economy. Although statistical data is not published, it is known that production has decreased and is now at levels similar to those of the nineteenth century. Cuba, once the world’s supplier of sugar, has become a sporadic importer of derived sweets. This notwithstanding, the regime’s scribes have no qualms in publishing headlines such as the one on the November 30 issue of Granma: “Five Decades Supporting Sugar Production!”
Livestock has also dropped substantially, both in numbers and in quality. The ratio of livestock to citizen is currently a third of what it used to be in 1958 and what’s worse, these are mostly rickety animals.
During the last few weeks the official media had informed us that the coffee production has been virtually destroyed. Crops have dropped to nearly a tenth and Cuba, once an important coffee exporter, is now an importer. Similar deterioration is witnessed in citrus production and in the transport sector.
This bleak picture is even less justifiable if we take into account the substantial subsidies obtained during the decades when the Soviet Union was in existence, as well as those currently received from Chavez’s Venezuela. Figures vary from one analyst to another, but all acknowledge that in the case of the Soviet Union, the total aid granted was in the tens of billions of rubles.
This figure even exceeded the total aid received by Europe after World War II through the Marshall Plan, which allowed the continent to overcome the terrible destruction caused by the war. Subsequently, the Marshall Plan pushed Europe towards a strong development process, while the money received by Cuba only served to mask the absolute inefficiency of the system and afford its population a very modest means of survival.
A Remembrance of Congress V
To remember the decisions of 1997 during the previous party congress is something we deem useful, as it will serve as a prologue of what the regime is now trying to achieve. We especially recommend a new reading of the Economic Resolution issued during said congress. Many of its passages are worthy of citation, but perhaps a few samples shall suffice:
Regarding these two final points, it is worth repeating, so that the reader may compare, what is stated now regarding the same topic in the Guidelines Project: “To modify storage and marketing systems through more efficient task mechanisms that contribute to the reduction of losses between the production chain and the final consumer and to increase the benefit and improve the quality of the products offered (172).” Certainly the statements issued thirteen years ago were more concise, but even though the statements had pretty much the same essence, their content was not fulfilled.
The quotations – again – can be many, but we think that those listed above shall suffice. We simply wish to point out that all of those goals were meant to be achieved before 2002, the year set for the following congress. As we saw, the reality is that the term will be extended at least until 2011. Perhaps a multitude of comments on the above shall seem superfluous. We should, however, at least point out that any similarities between the agreements of Congress V and what is now being proposed for Congress VI is not a mere coincidence.
In order to round out this point, we simply want to add that in the Guidelines Project the current Castro regime, perfectly aware of what we have stated in this section, intends to undermine this important discussion with a brief paragraph stating the following: “Beyond all of the goals stated in the Economic Resolution of Congress V, the period saw the necessity of giving some of the new policies a new direction, as this allowed us to face some complex problems arising from the international scene, as well as the internal problems that came up (page 5).”
Inaccuracies in the Document
Some of the premises the Guidelines Project is based on are wrong. For example, the document states that – allegedly– the current global crisis has had a “bigger impact on underdeveloped countries” (page 5). But in fact the opposite is true and the economies of developed countries have suffered more than those of countries with emerging markets, such as China, India or Brazil, just to mention a few.
Likewise, the document states that “Between 1997 and 2009 price fluctuations in exports and imports led to a net loss of 10,149 million pesos compared to 1997 levels” (page 5). The things you’ll read! The Communists shoved aside a centuries old national tradition in Cuba, and destroyed the sugar industry. With this they deprived the country of the opportunity to cash in on the higher market prices of the last few years, during which the price of derived sweetener has, on average, tripled from 10 to 30 cents per pound. Now they complain because “the buying power of exports of goods fell 15%” and they claim that this is because of some adversity in the exchange terms! As it can be seen, this is an egregious example of how to turn your sins into virtues.
The document also states, wrongly, that there has been a “worsening of the economic, trade and financial blockage [...] imposed by the United States of America, a situation that has not been modified by the current administration of that country” (page 5). On the contrary, the Obama administration has softened the economic embargo in substantial ways, most notably by lifting restrictions on money transfers and travel from Cuban-Americans to the island. What is actually happening, but also omitted from the document coming from the party’s leadership, is that the Castro regime ignored these important steps, and acted as though they had no importance at all.
Even worse, the regime smashed the negotiating table by imprisoning contractor Alan Gross. He was charged with the alleged crime of distributing among his contacts some computers and telephones, which had been introduced into the country through customs, that is, not smuggled.
With all of these actions, the Havana government allowed an opportunity for rapprochement with the United States slip away. Starting a negotiation process between the two countries would have been fairly easy at the time, given the political capital the newly elected president enjoyed after his 2008 election, and given the support he had in both chambers of Congress.
In the matter of the Havana-Washington relations, the Castro regime continues to act as though Cuba’s sole raison d’etre were to challenge the United States of America. This is an example of how to apply the necessary enemy doctrine. This hostility towards our neighbors, which never made full sense, lost any sense (at all) nearly twenty years ago with the end of the Cold War.
However, the Communist regime has, to this day, wasted every single opportunity it has had to start defusing tensions with the United States, particularly during the current (Obama) administration, and it has held fast to its anti-U.S. position. This garners praise from a dubious audience among the more extremist sectors of Latin America and the rest of the world. While these countries cheer Cuba on, they refrain from adopting a similar line in their own countries, and instead witness the consequences the Cuban people pay for a fruitless and artificial opposition that causes it to experience physical hardships belonging to the nineteenth century.
While countries notorious for their lack of sympathy toward the United States such as North Korea and Iran have freed U.S. citizens captured in compromising situations, the Cuban government fails to free Mr. Gross, who has not even been formally charged. There is within the Havana government a powerful sector hell bent on preventing an easing of tensions with Washington.
This is even more counterproductive if we take into account that the most likely solution for pulling Cuba’s production infrastructure out of the ditch it currently finds itself in would be to establish special trade relations with a country or group of countries with strong economies. Within the frame of such special trade relations Cuba could gain entrance to foreign markets under favorable conditions for a few key Cuban exports.
Of course, such foreign market could not be an ALBA country, since the economies in this alliance are not complementary to Cuba’s own. In this sense, the statement from president Raúl Castro on the progress of an economic alliance with Venezuela, and the emphasis the Guidelines Project makes on this point, when upon discussing the “economic integration” topic it declares, from the start, that it will “prioritize participation in the Bolivarian Alliance for the Americas” (107); this can only owe, in our opinion, to necessity and lack of convenient options.
Although there are other options available, not much imagination is needed to figure out that, given its geographic proximity, the United States are the ideal candidate to become Cuba’s trade partner. But it is obvious that given the current state of political tension between the countries, trade partnerships are out of the question. This is exactly why we urge a normalization of the U.S. – Cuba relations, based on a sacred foundation made up of mutual respect for each country’s sovereignty, a policy of no interference in internal affairs, as well as the goal of achieving common benefits and being good neighbors.
But the Havana regime has not only failed to ease its relation to the United States, it has also failed to engage the European Union, which is still excluding Cuba from the Cotonou Agreements and other bilateral pacts given the regime’s failure to adopt a more respectful posture toward human rights, something that it is obliged to do.
Far from mentioning any intention to normalize relations with the United States, the Guidelines Project charges against what it calls “the blockade.” Not much else was to be expected, although it must be said that it does so in a more measured way than official Cuban documents. However, it does remain silent on what the steps would be in order to have these measures lifted. Certainly, once this is achieved it will constitute a first step of utmost importance for the economic growth of our country.
The Guidelines Project
From the very moment Congress VI is summoned, and its guiding document is issued, the overall aim of the process is revealed: continuity. Indeed, as it states that the congress will focus on “updating the economic and social model of the country” it is obvious that the intention of the elders of the Party-State that ordered its drafting is to preserve, not change. As a matter of fact, this document constitutes a chronicle of a foretold failure.
The current leadership, as a current day Professor Pangloss, carries on as though everything were for the best and within the best of all possible worlds. They are, obviously, thousands of miles away from reality. They act as though they didn’t know the unfathomable depth of the hole they have sunk our country in. But they must certainly be aware of them, as Fidel Castro himself recently told a foreign journalist that “The Cuban model no longer works, not even for us,” a statement with which, it must be said, we wholeheartedly agree.
They insist on applying old formulas, closing their eyes not only to Cuba’s present day reality, but also to the experience of all the countries changed course and abandoned this mistaken path. It is quite the paradox, however, that while high officers of the State-Party and their families have a living standard that corresponds to developed countries, and the rest of Cuba’s citizens live in abject poverty.
One after the other Poland, Eastern Germany, Hungary, the former Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia, Bulgaria, Albania and fifteen former soviet republics along with Mongolia left the world that was dubbed “real socialism.” And it must be pointed out that the transit to a better society was effected, as a rule, in a peaceful manner, when the respective peoples, including those belonging to the communist parties, were convinced that they had been walking, for decades down roads that led to nowhere.
As a matter of fact, even China and Viet Nam (which continue to assert the validity of Marxist-Leninist theory, even if it’s only lip service and still maintain single party totalitarian regimes) have achieved unquestionable successes owing exactly to the freeing of their economies and the implementation of capitalist production systems.
Only the totalitarian satrapy of the Kims in North Korea continues to implement the old recipes of traditional communism and stays on the lonely path of its dynastic, jingoist ways, while famines and all sorts of ills affect its people. At the same time, the truly democratic republic set on the south end of the same peninsula continues to thrive although decades ago it was considered the most lagging part of the country. This sole comparison is enough to understand the extent to which toeing the Stalinist party line makes no sense.
But the Castro regime continues to close its eyes to the mounting evidence. It now proposes an option to “update” the current model, when it is obvious that the only course of action applicable to disaster is not perfecting it (which is what the “updating” actually refers to) but rather discarding it. It is evident to us that, should the same direction continue, and should the reticence to embrace a true aperture remain, the only outlook is an accelerated worsening of the already critical situation of our country, along with the possibility of a social explosion, one that could lead to an unnecessary bloodshed among brothers.
As Cubans, we’d be guilty of wishful thinking if we thought otherwise. The price of electric power will soon go up in Cuba. This will strongly affect thousands of families in our country, who, in observance of the regime’s own dictum, use electric power for cooking. The increased rates will hit them hard, and to their owes we will add those of thousands of Cubans who will be left without a job and no means of subsistence, although the Guidelines Project repeats, in an extreme display of disconnection, that tired old slogan, “work is both a duty and right!” (Page 7). This massive lay off process will be even more irksome to those affected by it because, as it has been stated in the unofficial newspapers, the cutbacks will not affect members of the armed forces or the Ministry of the Interior, both of which resort to force or repression to maintain the status quo of the totalitarian regime.
These cruel and reactionary measures are adopted, besides, in the context of the stated goal of “phasing out, in an orderly manner, the rationing card as a means of orderly, egalitarian and subsidized means of distribution, one that favors both the citizen in need as well as the citizen devoid of need, and that also leads individuals to bartering and retailing practices and generates the existence of an underground market.” This purpose is stated in the Guidelines Project (162) but no measure is set in order to somehow offset the worsening of the food situation pertaining to those most affected by the new measure, the extreme poor.
The possibility of allowing those unlucky victims of the massive layoffs to work independently (an euphemism for private micro enterprise) has been explored, but this remains to be seen. Not everybody has the capital necessary to set off on such a venture. Besides, up until now, the position on this matter has been too petty: instead of encouraging the creation of these particular enterprises, the current taxation scheme aims simply at asphyxiating them.
We believe that the lack of access of these budding entrepreneurs to wholesalers where they can acquire raw goods at a lower cost is yet another government trap aimed at eliminating them from a social-productive point of view. However, it must be said that the Guidelines Project does speak -in the future tense, of course- of developing “unsubsidized wholesale markets that will sell at volume prices and without subsidies” (9). All of these obstacles will increase, mostly when competition among entrepreneurs increases proportionally to the large number of new self-employed actors entering the economy.
We already know the teaching of the old saying, roughly translated as “once scalded, a dog will run even from cold water.” This is not the first time the regime invites its citizens to develop private enterprises. During the so-called “Special Period”, a similar aperture ended in the ever-growing government pressure to force hundreds of thousands of self-employed citizens to return their licenses. On those occasions the government even went as far as deploying criminal law as a means to its end. For these purposes it deployed the notorious “police operations” baptized with colorful names such as “Cobblestone” or “Bird on a Wire” and leading to processes that ended up in kangaroo courts, devoid of procedural guarantees and where the word absolution was never to be heard. Instead, they always led to the imprisonment of micro entrepreneurs.
Given this context, it should come as no surprise then that due to the illegality of our country, many compatriots will choose to continue to work on their own, or to begin to do so, but without formalizing their status.
It is hard, meaning almost impossible, for the citizens to believe in the contrition announced by the totalitarian regime, especially because they are fully aware that it has been this regime’s arbitrary actions and absurd programs that have led the country to the state it currently is in.
How can the citizens trust that their personal project will be respected by the government this time around, when the same government continues to espouse, at least in theory, the same obsolete Marxist-Leninist theories that label any entrepreneur, regardless of the size of his company, as “bourgeois” and when they consistently condemn, without mitigation, the alleged exploitation they always ascribe to those hiring workers for pay? What can they expect when no self-criticism has been done, let alone any apologies presented, in connection with the multiple economic abuses carried on for decades?
On the other hand, what is the option for the many, probably the majority, of those who cannot even dream of setting up their own micro enterprise? What will their options be, aside from prostitution or petty crime?
The weak will be affected the most by this process: women, seniors, semi-illiterate, handicapped. To speak of “savage capitalism” is becoming a fad among certain circles, but we must say that the sad state of affairs now facing Cuba will soon become “savage Communism” in its worse incarnation.
Acknowledgements in the Guidelines Project
The analyzed document does acknowledge, in a roundabout, cloaked manner, that the situation of several branches of the Cuban economy is critical. We state this partly because there is no self-critical assessment of the Cuban economy as a whole, and because the critical situation of the different sectors and branches is never openly admitted and stated. The admission of failure, when done, is always between the lines, and it must be inferred, as it is always encrypted among the ambitious plans stated. Regarding these, the context clearly implies that this time, of course, they will be thoroughly executed. Of course!
For example, when the Guidelines Project mentions that rethreading plants will be refurbished (213) or that hydraulic networks, sewer systems and aqueducts will be repaired (281) or that a similar plan exists for fertilizer and granular plant in Matanzas (212) a tacit acceptance of the precarious state of these assets is actually delivered too.
Likewise, when the document mentions “activating currently idle lots, currently equivalent to 50% and increasing agricultural yields” (page 6) and “recovering the citrus production activities” (179) as well as mentioned of the “recovery, modernization and reorganization of transportation” (249) and the “refurbishing and modernization... of the main ports” (258), the rehabilitation of “electric networks and the eliminations of low wattage zones” (227) and the need to undertake “maintenance and conservation activities for the habitation fund” (273).
Item 103 deserves a special mention, as it states the following: “To continue to develop international solidarity through the collaboration Cuba offers, and to establish the economic and statistical records necessary to allow the required analysis, especially of costs.” Not much imagination is needed to understand that this is an implicit admission of a previous lack of control over the abundant assistance our famished citizenry has been providing to other countries for decades, mostly for purposes of gaining political prestige in the Third World, mostly to satisfy the interests of the ruling class, and mostly rejected by the people.
It must be said, however, that the essentially bleak picture and the disastrous state of national affairs
is not limited solely to the economy, which as per the announcement issued by the regime, is to be the sole matter to be discussed during the upcoming congress. Similar statements can be made about the political, social, moral and demographic situation of the country, as well as other matters pertaining to the environment, national identity and family separation.
Cuba is beset by problems such as rampant, prevalent corruption, civic decay, double standards, lying, cheating, the rule of “everything goes”, the preaching of austerity from the mouths of those in privilege, an increase in crime rates, an even higher number of prisoners, a decrease in the califications of the numerous college graduates, a lack of Internet access, the exile of two million of our compatriots, the prevailing desire to emigrate among the youth and even among many adults, the use of foreign symbols, and the tens of thousands of applicant for a Spanish visa, even among Communist militants.
Is this of no importance to the ruling class?
Going back to strictly economic matters, we must state that, of course, our approach would be lacking in objectivity if we were to state that there are no positive aspects within our national outlook. It is true that modest gains have occurred in the production of nickel, in the pharmaceutical and biotech industries, in oil and natural gas extraction, and in the tourism sector. But they fail to compensate for the stunning setbacks suffered in other sectors, some of them vital, such as sugar production.
The essentially negative balance in the country’s economic performance is acknowledged in the Guidelines Project when Cuba - not an industrialized country! - is described as a “net importer of food” (166) and the aspiration to achieve a “self-sufficient food supply” is stated, or when allusions are made to the current “deficit in the payments balance” and the need to suppress it (page 7). On more general terms, “low efficiency” and a “decapitalization of the productive base and the infrastructure” (page 5) are also acknowledged. But we must insist, when assessing a course of action for the Cuban economy today, these euphemisms cannot be a substitute for a frank, open acknowledgement of disastrous state of affairs afflicting our country today.
Once again, when we go over the limited progress seen in a few economic activities, as mentioned previously, we are able to see the fundamental role played by foreign investment in the development of our economy. Is it a coincidence that in those four sectors there is a strong presence of foreign partners?
If we accept that the answer must be no, then there will also be a disagreement with the role that the Castro regime is envisioning for private investors, treating it as a poor relative of sorts, only to be called upon as a “complement to the national investment effort.” All of this, to boot, while maintaining the odious discrimination against Cubans, since only “foreign capital” (89) is allowed
to invest, something that is simply shameful.
We are also wary of the stated goal of “assessing the existing associations with foreign capital and carry out the necessary adjustments, so that they match the country’s requirements” (98), something that, obviously, seems to aim at a unilateral changing of the rules by the government, of the conditions freely negotiated with these entrepreneurs.
Discovering the Mediterranean
To be honest, we have no qualms about most of the goals stated in the Guidelines Project. It is true that the language it employs is often shady and it is also not the most suited for presenting a party platform (where clarity must prevail) and what’s even more relevant, when this party is the sole ruler in power. However, there are three main objections we wish to state against what is stated in it.
First – an amazing feat in a project whose goal is to set up the guidelines for the entire economy of a nation during a five year period, in a process to be ruled “by planning and not by the market”! - There isn’t a single figure in the entire document. Not a single figure in the 32 pages! It seems to be that the Castro regime chose to hedge its bets and it abstained from providing even modest figures, contrary to what they did on the Economic Resolution of Congress V of the sole party, where nearly a dozen of future economic development parameters is listed, most of which, it should be mentioned in passing, were not met.
Second, the measures stated in the Guidelines Project are in many ways tired clichés that would be the envy of tired public relations hacks and spin meisters, or, at best, a catalog of good intentions, applicable not only to the Cuban economy of 2010 and beyond, but also for all of humanity, anytime, anywhere.
We can suggest that there is a resemblance between the letters little boys and girls write during Christmas, asking for presents from Santa Claus, Baby Jesus, or the Three Wise Men, filled with illusion. In the case of present day Cuba, we can think that, at best, the plans stated in the Guidelines Project are a worthy aspiration, if the system were to function properly, which is not the case.
Such obvious statements are contained in declarations requiring that “investments shall be executed in such a way that will allow the minimization of the idling of resources simultaneously in long term goals” (117) or when mention is made of “establishing rules adequate for the issuance of currency and the timely reading of the indicators that will allow its control” (47) or of the need to “support a tax culture and foster the social responsibility of the population and the institutions of the country in the full compliance of the taxation obligations” (58).
The same applies to the stated goals of “increasing and consolidating income from the export of goods and services” (68), “prioritize, in export activities, the comprehensive assurance, with all the necessary resources, at all steps of the value chain” (77) or to “work in the strictest manner possible to increase the credibility of the country in its international economic relations, through the strict compliance of the obligations entered into” (65), to cite only a few examples.
But our third objection, which is the essential objection, is our disagreement with the instruments that are to be used in order to achieve these hypothetical changes that have also been deemed desirable.
The Guidelines Project starts from the premise of keeping the essence of the current system, thus subjecting it only to an “upgrade.” This is stated in particularly clear terms on page 7 of the document, where it reads, “Only Socialism is capable of overcoming the difficulties and preserving the achievements of the Revolution.” But said Socialism has only managed to lead our country into the sad state of affairs it currently finds itself in! Are the differences between the goals set now and those set thirteen years ago by Congress V so big? We already saw that the goals stated in 1997 were clearly not met. How can we as Cubans be sure that this time the plans set forth will actually become a reality?
The methods currently being espoused are the same that have taken the Cuban economy to the dead alley it currently finds itself in. Let us examine some statements: “The Socialist planning system will continue to be the main way for the direction of the national economy” (1); “planning will include not only the government owned enterprises and the mixed capital Cuban companies, but it will also apply to other non-state entities, as applicable” (5); “no concentration of property will be allowed” (3).
Furthermore, the vicious cycle of fixed pricing remains. It is true that the document states that the “price system shall de subject to a comprehensive review in a way that will allow for the correct measurement of economic events” (61) and it is also true that a certain room for maneuvering is allowed when it states that “the companies will approve, in a flexible and transparent manner, the prices applicable to the productions and services they will offer” (23) and that the “approval of other prices” will be made more flexible (excluding those “products and services it is in the state’s interest to regulate”) (62 and 63) and that in the agro industrial policy, the “formation of the price of most of the products shall follow supply and demand” (177).
But since the above shall be carried out within the framework of a pricing policy to be oriented by the overseeing entity” (23) and an insistence on planning and not marketing persists, the regime’s intentions are still equivalent to some sort of squaring of the circle, since devoid of the reference afforded exclusively by markets, prices continue to be, in essence, fixed by bureaucrats, and they will continue to have an artificial nature, and therefore they will not be able to provide a “correct measure of economic events.”
What’s worse, the reforms are now proposed with an urgent character, when the country is literally staring at an abyss, as it was stated by the President of the Councils of State and of Ministers.
A way (to start getting) out of the crisis
We do not claim to have a perfect formula to lead our country out of the dead end to which the current leadership has steered it, but it is clear to us that the way out is not through wishful thinking
that permeates the Guidelines Project.
It is clear to us that no favorable result will come out of the application of useless tools and policies, worn down by half a century of implementation along with the insistence in the central planning of the economy and a constant ignorance of the role of markets and private property, a permanent undermining of individual investors, and a perpetual drive to keep the economy separated from politics and the rest of the problems facing our country
The governing class must recognize that for more than half a century it has steered the country down the wrong path. That the much publicized “Revolution’s triumphs” are not an achievement of the system, but rather the product of the enormous subsidies received from foreign governments. It is impossible to close our eyes and choose not to see that even these so-called conquests are quickly crumbling amidst Cuba’s shipwreck.
Moving on to more general matters, it is essential that the rights of each man and woman be respected, starting with the freedoms of expression, association and assembly, and with the right to access information freely, including the Internet. Dissent must be legalized; the option to choose its leaders in free and open elections must be afforded to Cubans; the state must work for the individual, not the other way around; all those currently imprisoned for political reasons must be freed. Furthermore, a system shall be implemented where in there shall be no more incarcerations for those who simply happen to disagree with the government and care to express it in a non-violent manner.
These are steps that will allow developed countries to cast a New Cuba in a favorable light and give it the aid it needs to solve the current crisis it is currently faced with, and making it feasible for the country to start a speedy economic recovery.
It is possible that the rank and file communists, under the influence of official propaganda, will distrust those of us who openly challenge the system, as well as the exile community. The opposite is also true. But the homeland of all Cubans is in danger, and we must help it out of the terrible situation it currently finds itself in. We must do this based on a premise: Cuba comes first.
Havana, December 7, 2010.
Félix Antonio Bonne Carcassés
Guillermo Fariñas Hernández
René Gómez Manzano