Une victoire de Cuba grâce au Système

Une victoire de Cuba grâce au Système

On nous pardonnera de mettre dans les Brèves de crise un texte aussi long que l’extrait de l’article d’Alexander Mercouris paru notamment dans Sputnik.News le 20 décembre 2014. Mercouris, commentateur politique résidant à Londres, est haï par la presse-Système britannique, – le Daily Telegraph et le Financial Times en particulier, – ce qui signifie qu’on peut avoir pour lui un préjugé extrêmement favorable. Il est souvent un invité du CrossTalks de Peter Lavelle, sur Russia Today.

L’article de Mercouris est excellent. Il s’agit d’une très longue analyse de l’affaire cubaine, avec un long historique définissant parfaitement ce que fut Cuba pour les USA et ce qu’il est devenu. Mercouris met bien en évidence que l’hostilité des USA vis-à-vis de Cuba à partir de la fin des années 1950 vient, non pas de ses choix idéologiques et du commencement de rapprochement avec l’URSS, mais du fait que Cuba, considéré comme une réelle “possession” coloniale US depuis la fin du XIXème siècle, une sorte d’État de l’Union supplémentaire, exotique, consacré à la détente des cohortes de l’américanisme menées par le crime organisée, avait osé “proclamer son indépendance” avec Castro, – “faire sécession”, si l’on veut... (« In a very real sense the US had come to regard Cuba as an informal though exotic part of the United States itself, making Cuba’s break with the United States not just politically and economically, but also psychologically intolerable. [...] The Castro Revolution was in a sense Cuba's declaration of independence from the United States.») Ainsi l’hostilité US pour Cuba n’était pas la conséquence de l’alliance de Cuba avec l’URSS, mais le contraire : «The Soviet alliance was not, however, the reason for US hostility towards Cuba. Rather it was its result.»

Nous publions ci-dessous le dernier quart de l’article de Mercouris, celui où il analyse le fait de l’éventuelle (encore à faire) “restauration” des liens USA-Cuba, ou sa “création” par contraste avec ce qui exista avant Castro. Mercouris estime avec de très sérieux arguments, – certainement les plus sérieux qu’on puisse considérer dans cette affaire, – que les USA ont baissé les bras devant Cuba et que Cuba est le grand vainqueur de la nouvelle situation. Mais surtout, il précise justement que cette victoire n’est pas le résultat de la confrontation entre les deux pays (même si elle doit paraître telle en termes de communication) mais de calculs intérieurs d’Obama pour tenter de restaurer son image de “libéral” auprès de son électorat naturel, qui sera aussi celui d’une éventuelle Hillary Clinton candidate démocrate en 2016. (On a le sens de la “Famille”, au sens mafioso du terme, dans l’American Dream.) Car, aux USA où le reste du monde (RoW) n’existant pas sinon pour servir de province de convenance aux USA, tout passe par la mécanique-Système interne au système de l’américanisme. (Les passages en gras sont de Mercouris lui-même.)

«Firstly, as the White House statement makes clear, there has been no fundamental rethink of US foreign policy, something of which the United States remains for the moment incapable. The White House statement shows that the United States remains as committed to its hegemonic course as ever and is still committed to achieving regime change in Cuba.

»The answer for the change in policy in fact lies in internal US political considerations.

»An unpopular US president seeking to shore up support within his liberal political base and to reach out to the black and Hispanic communities in the United States whose votes will be crucial in the next presidential election, has taken the easy step of ending a diplomatic stand-off with Cuba that gave the United States no political dividends. As a president in the last two years of his presidency the political cost of taking this step is slight. By contrast, the political gains for the Democrats in shoring up support amongst American liberals, Hispanics and blacks in what is likely to be a difficult election in 2016 are substantial. Though hostility to Cuba in Washington has been overwhelming, attitudes towards Cuba amongst the groups whose electoral support the Democrats need is different. Many US liberals have over time been won over by the romantic image of the Cuban revolution, whilst amongst blacks and Hispanics (the latter especially a key demographic) sympathy and on occasion even a degree of self-identification with Cuba are strong.

»Even amongst Cuban-Americans attitudes towards the Cuban government have gradually softened as the older militantly anti-Castro generation has passed away. Significantly, one of the steps taken by the Obama administration, along with the opening of diplomatic relations, is the lifting of the ban on the use of US credit cards in Cuba and the easing of restrictions on remittances to Cuba. These are steps with obvious appeal to the many Cuban-Americans who continue to have family connections in Cuba and who wish to travel to Cuba and to support their families there.

»The fact that the Republicans are likely to oppose all of these measures and will most probably seek to block attempts in Congress to lift the economic embargo actually works in favor of Obama's objective. It enables him and the Democrats to draw dividing lines with the Republicans on this issue in a way that is likely to appeal to liberal, black and Hispanic voters. It means that Cuban voters in the key swing state of Florida in particular now have a strong reason to vote for the Democrats against a Republican candidate whom the Democrats will try to paint as aiming to reverse the monetary and travel concessions Obama has afforded.

»It may come as a surprise to many that the explanation for the change in US policy towards Cuba lies in US domestic politics. The US political system is, however, organized in such a way that domestic political considerations invariably trump all others. There is a clear and obvious political benefit for Obama and the Democrats in improving relations with Cuba. There is at present no such benefit in improving relations with Russia and Iran, or in pursuing a more evenhanded policy in relation to the Arab-Israeli conflict. On the contrary, any attempt to change US policies in these areas instantly runs into powerful opposition from entrenched electoral lobbies, which is why such attempts are never sustained for very long. It is precisely because of the disproportionate influence of such lobbies in the US political system that voting in Congress on issues that concern such lobbies tends to be so lopsided. This explains the overwhelming majorities in Congress in votes that relate to issues that concern Russia, Israel, or Iran. When these lobbies are strong neither the Democrats nor the Republicans have any political interest in standing up to them, which is why the overwhelming majority of them never do. It is only when the electoral influence of a lobby wanes that the political calculus changes allowing the policy to change.

»The change in US policy towards Cuba is a symptom of the decline in influence of the anti-Castro Cuban lobby and a sign that the political benefits of continued appeasement are now outweighed by the political advantages of standing up to it. That is the entire explanation both for the change of policy, as well as for being one of the reasons why it has taken so long.

»The abrupt shift of US policy towards Cuba had been received in some quarters with some alarm. There is an abundance of commentary that sees this change of policy as a trap for Cuba and for the Cuban leadership. Supposedly the US’s objective in restarting diplomatic relations is so that it can open an embassy in Havana to plot a counterrevolution there.

»It should be clarified that these fears have no basis. The United States has been attempting to foment a counterrevolution in Cuba for 54 years. It broadcasts propaganda to Cuba round the clock. It has an interests section in Havana which operates like an embassy. It has had no difficulty planting agents in Cuba or sending money to support them there. There is no doubt that the United States will continue with these efforts. However, merely reopening the embassy in Havana will not make that task any easier than it is already. If the purpose of opening an embassy in Havana is to overthrow the Cuban government then the United States would have done it long ago.

»As for the Cuban government, it would have made absolutely no sense for them to refuse a US offer to reopen diplomatic relations when this has been what they have been demanding ever since the United States broke off those relations in January 1961. The same is true of the embargo if and when it is eventually lifted. It would be simply perverse for the Cuban government to reject such a step when they have been demanding it ever since the Kennedy administration first imposed the embargo upon them five decades ago. Were the Cuban government to behave in such a bizarre way that would do far more damage to its political standing in Cuba than anything planned or attempted by the United States.

»It bears repeating that in this conflict of wills between Cuba and the United States it is Cuba which has unequivocally won. The Cubans have made no concessions to the United States on any significant issue. All the concessions have been made by the United States. Those who consider themselves Cuba's friends should rejoice in its victory and not seek to cast doubt on it or look for evidence of betrayal when there is none. To the extent that the USSR through its support for Cuba in the past played a key role in helping Cuba to achieve this victory, Russian friends of Cuba can take special pride in it.

»Cuba since the revolution has remarkable achievements to its credit. Claims about the excellence of the Cuban health and educational systems are true. Conditions in the Cuban countryside have been transformed. Cuba is a far more equal, immeasurably better educated and healthier society than it was in the 1950s. It remains culturally brilliant and is physically safe in a way that cannot be said for any other society in the Americas. Cuba also played a key role in the toppling in South Africa of the apartheid system that had existed there.

»To acknowledge the achievements of the Cuban people in most adverse conditions is not however to idealize the situation in Cuba today. Material conditions of life remain difficult. Though the Cuban revolution never resorted to mass repressions or political terror and the human rights situation in Cuba actually compares very favorably with that of many other Latin American countries such as Colombia and Mexico that the West classifies as democracies, it is delusional to think that the political system in Cuba is entirely free or politically open. Visitors to Cuba speak of the frustration felt especially by young people at the limits placed on their lives as well as of continuing support despite all the difficulties for the revolution and its government.

»The way forward for Cuba will be difficult. The threat from the United States has not gone away. Those who sympathize with the Cuban people should support them in their continuing struggle for a better life that will be built on the achievements of their revolution. That they have achieved such a remarkable victory against all odds in five decades of struggle is remarkable and offers the promise of greater achievements in the future now that because of their victory the pressures upon them may finally start to ease.»

Mis en ligne le 21 décembre 2014 à 10H47