[In August of 1994 Chomsky was asked some general questions about Cuba on
a Z magazine forum. His answer seems to me not only accurate but even
prescient, with reference to recent events there and in our new satrapy of
Iraq. --CGE]

The questions you raise are too broad, and too important, to be addressed
in a letter. As to what I think is going on -- pretty much what has been
going on in the past. I've outlined what I think in recent publications,
for example, in a chapter of a book "Year 501" published last year. I also
try to show there (and elsewhere) that US policies towards Cuba are part
of a far more general pattern, quite intelligible in terms of domestic
power structures, and amply illustrated in the historical and documentary
record, though quite inconsistent with the fairy tales that are preferred
by the commissar class (to use an unkind but generally accurate term).

Very briefly, since the 1820s Cuba has been regarded by US elites as
basically theirs, though they couldn't grasp the "ripe fruit" (as they put
it then) until the British deterrent was removed. When it was, the US took
the country over and turned it into a US plantation. No departure from
obedience was tolerable. FDR's "good neighbor policy," for example, was
shelved rapidly when it became necessary to reverse a deviation that
threatened to allow some degree of independence and democracy. Within
months of the success of the Castro revolution, Cuba was being bombed from
US territory, and by March 1960 the US had secretly determined to
overthrow the regime. This had nothing to do with Russia, Communism,
dictatorship,... -- rather, with independence. There followed direct
aggression, a huge terror campaign of unprecedented scale, economic
warfare, and in fact, every possible means to get rid of this "rotten
apple." Cuba was considered particularly dangerous because it sank so low
as to direct resources to the benefit of the poor majority and, even
worse, to support popular movements elsewhere that sought freedom from
US-imposed or -backed monsters of one or another variety (what is called
"subversion" or "aggression"). Another major crime was Cuba's
contributions to health and welfare in poor and suffering countries,
absolutely without precedent, and considered extremely dangerous,
particularly in the light of the sordid record of those who have the
wealth to confront and overcome those problems were they not to choose to
exacerbate them -- us, in particular.

For decades, the pretext for the terror and economic warfare was that Cuba
was an outpost of the evil empire, threatening our security. When the evil
empire collapsed, that excuse was quickly shelved, as useless, and
forgotten, and the noose was tightened, again by the Bush administration
(under pressure from liberal Democrats and the Clinton campaign), now
again. These policies have long been in defiance of such trivialities as
international law, world opinion (votes in the UN, including our allies),
etc. In brief, a continuation of what has been going on for 170 years, and
a particularly clear instance of far more general patterns, invisible only
to those who make a real effort not to see.

As for the regime, it's a dictatorship, often brutal though a teddy bear
in comparison with numerous US friends and clients, with plenty of human
rights violations, etc. The US hopes to increase these as much as
possible, for obvious reasons: (1) that will increase internal disorder,
and (2) it is ideologically useful as a weapon against the hated enemy.
But it is trivial to demonstrate that Cuba's crimes, however you evaluate
them, are irrelevant to US policy; the US happily supports and conducts
itself far worse crimes, including its crimes against Cuba. Since the
Russian collapse, the idea has been to tighten the stranglehold so as to
impose maximal suffering and oppression, hence increased resistance and
more repression and suffering, in the hope that sooner or later people
will be desperate enough to welcome the Marines. Even loyal apologists
generally concede what is obvious enough from the reporting that comes
through: people are trying to get out because they are suffering from the
collapsing economy. Naturally, no small country in the US sphere can
survive such an attack by the superpower hegemon without extensive outside
support, and there are few willing to brave the anger of the world's
leading Mafia don.

A crucial requirement is that articulate opinion in the US efface
completely what is happening before our eyes, however obvious it is, even
(at the most extreme levels of servility, regularly attained) to portray
us as victims of Castro -- standard in mainstream commentary. That this
requirement will be amply fulfilled is scarcely in doubt, so policy can
continue on course.

How should honest people react? First, with utter revulsion. Second, by
doing what they can to allow Cubans to deal with their problems
themselves, without our domination and control -- which, as history amply
shows, will cause them endless pain and torture. Personally, I'd like to
see the regime overthrown by an internal libertarian revolution (and not
that one alone). But I don't expect the US to implement such initiatives
any more than it does in the vast areas of the world in which it has
enormous influence, including at home -- and if the US were to change so
radically that that were a possibility, or if there were some other entity
in the global system so noble that such possibilities could be
contemplated without ridicule, I wouldn't want them to intervene either,
nor would they choose to, if they had actually achieved this
(unimaginable) level of honor. The reasons are those that have been
familiar for centuries, articulated by Kant and other Enlightenment
figures for example: freedom can only be won, not granted by a benevolent
power. Those who are fighting for freedom can sometimes be helped, but
only by those committed to freedom, that is, those who oppose terror,
oppression, injustice, and domination honestly, beginning with the
societies of which they are part (where they will find plenty).

At this level of extreme generality, anything said is bound to be
inadequate and misleading, but a really serious effort to deal with the
issues would overwhelm this medium, I think.

###