March 10, 2006
The Man Who Controls Venezuela
He stood in front of the television cameras and cracked a whip in a fury. "This is what I am going to do to my opponents!" he declared as he drew back the whip and threw it forward once again. The air snapped loudly making the message of intimidation clear.
No, this was not a professional wrestler trying to entice teenage boys into watching his next championship match. It was Hugo Chavez in his campaign for the presidency of Venezuela. The month was November 1998 and in this televised appearance he was describing what he planned on doing to his main opposition, the Acción Democrática party.
Who would have thought at the time that some seven years later this man would be one of the most recognizable faces in world politics? One month his face is seen worldwide after televangelist Pat Robertson suggested he should be assassinated and the next Chavez is on CNN predicting the United States will soon be dropping bombs on Caracas in an effort to take over Venezuela's oil fields.
More recently, he received world attention for his "Anti"-Summit of the Americas in Mar de Plata, Argentina, an attempt to derail the real summit opening the following day. Now, this past December, headlines read his coalition of political parties have taken 100% of the seats in the Venezuelan Assembly after opposition parties withdrew from the election.
Love him or hate him no one can deny that Hugo Chavez has made sure the world knows his name.
And not only do people across the world know his name, many admire him to such a degree that Chavez has reached celebrity status. For example, in a recent BBC interview with Chavez favorable questions and comments poured in from abroad.
A reader from Irvine, California stated "I think you are a bright light amongst an otherwise dim group of world leaders - a Bobby Kennedy for Latin America" while a man from Saint John, Canada chimed in "I admire your work and your perseverance against all the critics. Stand strong and best wishes bringing prosperity to Venezuela!"
One published comment in particular seemed to sum up the feeling of many who took the time to write in: "Many people around the globe appreciate you dearly."
But what has he done to earn this goodwill? And more importantly, does he deserve it?
The most obvious reason for Chavez's international support comes from his oil funded social programs for the poor, combined with his anti-Bush rhetoric. But it is more complex than this simple recipe.
While Chavez's Barrio Adento program raises eyebrows due to the uniqueness of bringing thousands of Cuban doctors to Venezuela in exchange for oil, the goal of bringing healthcare to the needy is not confined to his government. It is actually one of the most common themes pushed by politicians of all stripes. In Chile's presidential election in late 2005 one of the promises made by Joaquin Lavín, the furthest right-of-center candidate, was the construction of numerous new medical facilities to help the underprivileged. Likewise, Bush himself campaigned on building or improving 1,200 healthcare sites to serve millions in rural areas. His administration, like Chavez, has spent hundreds of millions accomplishing this goal.
Nor is the world in any shortage of politicians who condemn President Bush. While Chavez definitely pushes these limits, as he did when he labeled Bush "a killer, a genocidal murderer and a madman," criticizing the President of the United States is one of the easiest ways for politicians worldwide to score points with their constituents.
What does set Chavez apart from others is what many find to be his charismatic, albeit edgy, personality. This was reflected in an article by Robin Lustig, the BBC reporter who spoke with Chavez in the interview mentioned above. The title of the piece says it all: "Hugo Chavez: Charming Provocateur".
This personality in turn leads to a distinctive style of governance. For, not only does Chavez set up government programs for the poor, but if you are lucky enough to be one of the calls he takes on his weekly Sunday television show, Aló Presidente, he will personally change your life. Callers who describe serious medical problems are told that they will be flown to Cuba for treatment, often in the President's own plane. Others who are unemployed but have an interest in maybe budgeting or math, are told that the president of their government bank, Banco del Pueblo Soberano, is always in need of people and will immediately be calling to offer them a job. Chavez is Santa Claus and Jerry Springer all rolled into one and many people in the country love him for it.
It is also hard not to crack a smile, whether in disbelief or in sincere humor, when he tells stories about experiences with his daughter's pets, when he refers to Bush as "Mr. Danger", or when he recounts how he struck out Fidel Castro in a friendly baseball game between the two countries a few years back (Fidel still disputes the umpires call and the subject continues to be a matter of debate between the two).
Yet, despite all these humorous antics, one quickly realizes that this comic relief can reach the point of absurdity. Such was the case in 2002 when Chavez decided to terminate employees of the state oil company who were helping to organize a strike. No, they were not sent letters by the government letting them know they would be dismissed. Instead they were given notice live on national television by Chavez who read each of their names off a list. After reading some of their names he would sarcastically thank them for their service, while for others he blew a soccer whistle and screamed "Offsides!!!" to let them know they had been fired.
It is times like these you ask yourself, how is this man running a country?
This same bizarre attitude is seen extending across all segments of the Venezuelan government.
For one, Hugo Chavez is a man of change. Within a year of winning the presidency, not only did Venezuela have a new constitution but it also had a new name, Republica Bolivariana de Venezuela, something Chavez insisted upon. In 2001, he passed 49 radical new laws by executive decree, many of which drastically changed the country's business environment and even violated his new constitution. On top of this, his possible presidential term has been extended to 2013 with talks of extending this date to 2030. Prior to his arrival, presidents could only sit for one 5-year term without the possibility a second term for 10 years. This would have forced Chavez to relinquish his office in February 2004.
With regards to the centralization of power, in addition to the above, on his show he has publicly taunted governors of opposition parties who he has denied or delayed funds to run their provinces (unlike the U.S. all tax revenue flows through the Federal government before making its way back to the states). In places like Zulia, Carabobo, and Miranda when the money was eventually sent a good part of it did not go to the provincial government, but instead to generals allied with Chavez who thereafter acted like elected governors. Under such circumstances people quickly learned that it literally didn't pay to vote for an opposition candidate.
In another incident this past fall, the world saw firsthand his respect for property rights. While Chavez continued putting forth the idea that land should be expropriated from large owners, he suddenly declared that next week's Aló Presidente would be filmed from one of these large ranches he wanted to confiscate. Military soldiers quickly invaded a portion of one large estate, cleared an area for a makeshift set, and the following Sunday Chavez indeed broadcast his show live from the ranch... all without permission of the owner.
Which is just one example of Chavez's respect for the law. During his term he has also illegally recorded private phone conversations with a wire tap then broadcast them to the country on national television, passed "organic" laws ( i.e. the most important) by a simple majority instead of the necessary 2/3 mandated in the constitution, and even dismissed 20,000 state oil company workers without their promised severance packages, company savings, or rights to their pensions.
But who needs to respect the law when you have the courts stacked in your favor? This past year Chavez increased the number of justices on the Supreme Court of Venezuela from 20 to 32. Five additional justices were added to fill vacancies bringing the total number of new appointees to 17.
These new justices, appointed by a Chavez-controlled Assembly, made clear that they are anything but unbiased interpreters of the law during the opening ceremonies for the Venezuelan courts. At the event on January 26th of this year, the justices began chanting "Oohhh! Aahhh! Chavez no se va!" (i.e . "Oohhh! Aahhh! Chavez will not leave!"… a popular chant at pro-Chavez rallies).
Other Chavez acts are guaranteed to turn your stomach. Case in point, in early 2004 Chavez informed the world that Condoleezza Rice kept bringing him up because she was having dreams of him out of sexually frustration. He added that while it would be too much of a sacrifice for him to personally help her out in that regards, he listed several friends who could offer their services.
All the while the government continues to crack down on those who are critical of these acts. In 2005 a new law was passed that makes it a crime to "insult" the President of the Republic. This crime, which is not even definable, will land you in prison for 6 to 30 months. The punishment is increased by a third if the act was done publicly.
In this same vein, the influential Venezuelan NGO Súmate states on it's website that there are "presently more than two hundred political prisoners and people who are persecuted for political reasons in Venezuela." A quick search on the internet will turn up several articles from Venezuelan periodicals such as El Universal and El National that put names behind these figures.
With these few examples in mind (there are many more), it is worth recounting some of the tumultuous events that led to the last election that left Chavez in complete control of the political system.
In April 2002, after a continued series of strikes and protests aimed at the Chavez government, a giant opposition march on April 11th turned into a blood bath as government forces opened fire on demonstrators headed towards Miraflores Palace. While Chavez was having television stations taken off the air for covering the events, several key military officials denounced the massacre and relinquished their positions. By the end of the day Chavez himself had stepped down with a guarantee for his safety but in an odd turn of events an unorganized opposition overplayed its hand and two days later Chavez was back in office.
While strikes and protests continued, the opposition's focus now shifted to a recall referendum to remove Chavez from power. In the fall of 2002 enough signatures were gathered for a consultative, or non-binding, referendum to be held on February 2nd, 2003. But shortly before the referendum was to take place, the Supreme Court stopped the vote, not on grounds that the referendum itself was unconstitutional, but that the vote could not be held until a new National Electoral Council (CNE) was named by what was now a Chavez-controlled assembly.
So in February, on the same day the first referendum was to take place, another signature drive was held and millions of people signed a constitutional recall referendum to remove Chavez from power. Yet, this process was again deemed illegitimate by the newly appointed CNE later in the year.
This forced the opposition to hold yet another signature drive in late November 2003, this time in compliance with rules made by the council. During the drive 3.4 million signatures were gathered, more than enough to put the referendum on the ballot. However, in the months that followed the CNE again questioned the legitimacy of the process, saying that the validity of many of the signatures was in doubt. After intense negotiation, it was decided that Venezuelans would be called on once again, this time to validate their signatures. They did in late May 2004 but reaffirming their signatures took on a whole new meaning.
For in the months between the signature drive and when signers were to reaffirm their signatures, Luis Tascon, a deputy in Chavez's party, published a database on the internet. This database, that would come to be known as the Tascon List and was accessible to anyone, documented who signed the petition to remove Chavez from power. It was subsequently used to fire referendum supporters who worked for the government, cancel government contracts, turn down requests to replace lost identification, and to deny government jobs for those seeking such employment. The government then made it clear that those who had originally signed the referendum could withdraw their signatures at the second signature drive. Many did to avoid further harassment.
Amazingly, enough signatures were still gathered, and while the now Chavez controlled CNE still tried to block the referendum, there were so many signatures that ultimately it could not refuse. It followed that on August 15th, 2004 Venezuelans headed to the polls to determine Chavez's fate.
Chavez was initially trailing heavily in the polls, but he began to gain ground as the election neared after heavy spending on social programs, pro-Chavez campaigning on the government's dime, and sometimes not-too-subtle reminders that those who voted against him might regret it (many feared that voting machines could be used to track their votes).
The day of the election exit polls showed Chavez losing by 60% to 40% margin, but surprisingly he emerged victorious by a virtual mirror image of the predicted results. These totals were not accepted without controversy.
The OAS and the Carter Center were criticized for quickly giving the election their blessing without even a partial random audit of the paper ballots in front of opposition representatives as was agreed on prior to the elections. The opposition also complained that the voter's registrar had grown by leaps and bounds in the months before the vote, possibly by adding individuals near the Colombian border who were not citizens. This would have been facilitated through a new government identification program called Mission Identidad.
Even today the controversy still rages. Just this past November a group of academics disclosed the findings of a new study they had just completed with regards to the August 2004 vote. According to an interview in El Universal, they found that given the number of voting machines, to reach the total of 8.5 million votes cast polls would need to have been open for an additional six hours. Their study concluded that between 1.5 and 2 million votes had been inserted into voting machines, turning a 5 percentage point victory for the opposition into a 20 point defeat.
Although the finding of this study was released in the week that preceded the last election it was not the reason for the boycott. Instead, it was concerns over voting privacy and election gerrymandering that made it clear that voters were going to stay home the day of the election. This in turn led opposition candidates to withdraw.
First off, a system of "morochas" or "twins" was in place whereby voter would cast ballots for both their party of choice and a candidate. Yet, with the addition of a new pro-Chavez political party, Chavez's coalition would receive an even higher percentage of the seats in the assembly than the proportion of votes they had received on election day. Even the Chavez-friendly head of the CNE, Jorge Rodríguez, stated that he had concerns over this issue but it was too difficult for him to solve this problem. This violation of proportional representation was clearly a cause for concern amongst the opposition.
Secondly, days before the election, at a voting simulation for international observers, the opposition demonstrated that Smartmatic voting machines to be used in the election could be used to keep track of individual votes. As observers voted in a mock election a man named Leopoldo Gonzalez read aloud for whom each person had voted. Embarrassed, Smartmatic technicians had him stop the demonstration and in the days that would follow the government would offer further concessions in an attempt to have the election as planned despite this demonstration.
But with unresolved issues like the presence of "morochas", the inequitable directorship of CNE, a voter registrar never checked in spite of constitutional mandates, and the Tascon List still fresh in people's minds, the concessions were not enough. Listening to their constituents the opposition candidates decided to boycott the election. According to the government 75% of registered voters did not cast ballots, while according to some this figure is in excess of 83%. Everyone is still waiting for the official numbers, which, despite the sophisticated voting machines, still have not been released.
The figures are stunning considering that the government extended voting hours in certain areas as they made last ditch efforts to get people to the polls (the CNE had previously made clear that hours would only be extended if there were lines to vote as the polls closed, which there were none).
Additionally, in an election day television appearance a deputy in Chavez's party said that public employees who did not vote should be fired (a fact hard to conceal from your employer as voters dipped their fingers in ink that was impossible to wash off for several days).
Nonetheless, at the end of the day Chavez's coalition of political parties held every seat in the assembly.
And what has been the international reaction to this turn of events?
As I read the headlines back home I was saddened to see that many focused on the accusation that the U.S. was behind the opposition's boycott. Not mentioned in these articles were the facts behind the concerns over voting privacy or that these accusations were made in a tirade by the vice-President who also said the opposition parties could "go to hell."
Nor did I see much press on the reaction by Chavez to the unfavorable EU and OAS reports. While in August 2004 Chavez repeatedly fell back on the OAS analysis to counter claims of fraud, this time around he stated that the EU and OAS were "acting in cohorts against people's interests and democracy" because they validated many of the opposition's complaints.
Then, in a package I recently received from home, my father threw in a copy of an article from the San Francisco Chronicle that heaped praise on Chavez for selling discounted fuel to low-income families in Massachusetts. Of course, relative poverty in Massachusetts cannot be compared with poverty in Venezuela, a country where according to the most recent data collected by the UN millions live on less than $1 a day.
Still, the quotes from Americans didn't reflect this sentiment, nor did they seem concerned with the political turmoil that exists in Venezuela. Instead they paid tribute to Chavez much like the comments from the BBC interview. Almost ironically, Joseph Kennedy was featured in the photograph accompanying the piece as he helped to haul a heating hose to one of the first recipients of the program.
In the same vein as my reporting from Cuba, I must stress to those that are sympathetic to Chavez that it is a logical error to assume the good is found in your enemy's enemy. As can be seen, the Chavez government is one that is no friend of decency in governance or political freedom, two standards we all cherish.
Simply put, too many people are allowing themselves to ignore violations of these ideals. Deep down some no doubt feel it is good to have a counterweight to Bush while others think that Chavez's "socialism for the 21st century" might finally get it right. And with that they give him the benefit of the doubt.
But such complacency comes at a cost. In free countries across oceans it may be safe to play with Chavez without getting burned, but it also condemns millions of Venezuelans to a life in the flames.
Posted by Peter Mork at 6:09 PM | Comments | TrackBack
October 15, 2005
Mexican Avocados and Chinese Shoes: Free-Trade in the 21st Century
In the summer of 2000, picking up my morning copy of The Wall Street Journal a front page article caught my eye. "Bitter Fruit: Spat Persists Despite Nafta” was its title and it covered the U.S. avocado market. Specifically, it dealt with restrictions on the importation of Mexican avocados and the correspondingly higher prices in San Diego compared to Tijuana. This quote in particular stood out:
" 'The California growers want to control all of the supply -- that way they get the best prices,' complains Ricardo Salgado, who raises avocados on 25 acres outside Uruapan, Michoacan, which has some of the world's lushest groves. 'We'd love to have a bigger selling season, but right now we have to wait for the U.S. Congress to give us permission.' "
California growers claimed, at the time, that weevils and fruit flies in Mexican avocados could destroy Californian crops. Thus, lawmakers had restricted importation to a handful of Northeastern states for only a few months out of the year. The argument behind the law sounded like a dubious claim to me with Tijuana much closer to some California orchards than even Nevada. On the other hand, Salgado’s quote made perfect sense: California growers wanted to restrict the supply so they could sell at monopoly prices.
It got me thinking. A degree in economics, working for an economic consulting firm headed by a University of Chicago economist, and plowing through books by authors such as Milton Friedman and Russell Roberts had all giving me a strong basis in the benefits of free trade. Yet couldn’t all this theory be summed up into one simple question: Where was the justice in the fact that I was able to buy an avocado from someone named Richard in Fallbrook, California, but I could go to jail if I bought an avocado from Ricardo simply because he lived in Uruapan, Mexico? Should the random chance of being born on the opposite side of a border restrict our association in that way?
Put in these terms it seemed much clearer. Yes, any economist can tell you that free trade is efficient, but there was also a strong moral argument to be made. Individuals, I felt, could identify with someone trying to better their life, not by theft or fraud, but through the simple act of voluntary exchange. I, living in San Diego, want guacamole and Ricardo, living in Uruapan, wants to sell me his avocados. Why should anyone have the power to stop such a transaction?
This past August, some five years after I first read the article, I found myself in Uruapan attempting to track down the man who had inspired this thought. Arriving in the small city with only his name I quickly learned a bit more about Ricardo Salgado. It turns out that he was not only an avocado farmer with a small orchard, but he was also the head of APEAM, the group that has been leading the charge to help Mexican avocados gain entry into the U.S. markets. While he was initially a little thrown off when I called his office out of the blue, he agreed to meet with me the following day at 5:00pm.
With time to kill before my meeting with Mr. Salgado, I hired a taxi the next day and spent time touring both avocado packing houses and the orchards that supplied them. In the time since the WSJ article had been published quite a bit had changed with regards to the importation of Mexican avocados. As of January 31st of this year the Mexican fruit is now allowed to enter 47 states year-around and in 2007 importation will expand to all 50 states.
At the San Lorenzo packing house they were clearly taking full advantage of this opportunity. My wife and I toured the facility as workers were getting ready for the arrival of thousands of avocados that would shortly be on their way to Texas. In both the plant, and touring nearby orchards, it was made clear to us that the increased business had boosted their business and the local economy.
More proof of this point was the fact that while the San Lorenzo Empacadora was the largest Mexican owned plant, they were not the largest exporter. Anticipating a change in the law, U.S. companies such as Calavo Growers, Inc. entered the city, bringing with them state-of-the-art technology and jobs to boot. Clearly, Uruapan was benefiting.
Back in California, to many people’s surprise, competition from Mexico was not having the dire effects on growers that many had predicted. This past July, regarding the increased competition from Mexico, the owner of the Del Ray Avocado Packing House in Fallbrook, CA was quoted in the North County Times saying: "It's gone amazingly well… The U.S. market is more developed than we thought. Avocado lovers are eating more of the fruit, and we're getting new consumers."
So, in summary, the Uruapan economy is getting a shot in the arm, California growers are surviving better than expected, and U.S. consumers are now able to enjoy some of the best avocados the world has to offer. It makes you wonder, why didn’t all this come about sooner?
About this same time Mexican newspapers proudly displayed a major bust by the Mexico City police. Two hundred and eighty tons of contraband had been seized in Tepito, an area of the capital known as a market for guns, drugs, and an assortment of stolen merchandise. So what was this illegal merchandise that the papers displayed? Actually, it was none of the previously mentioned items. Instead, the illegal goods were Chinese shoes.
The city of Leon, in the state of Guanajuato, Mexico is dependent on the sale of locally produced shoes like Uruapan is dependent on the sale of avocados. When the importation of inexpensive shoes from China made it very tough for local shops in the last few years, politicians passed laws practically prohibiting the sale of Chinese shoes in Mexico. According to one local I spoke to about the matter getting caught with just one pair of illegally imported Chinese shoes could land you in prison.
Was there not a parallel here to the avocado trade between Mexico and the U.S.?
When I told people I met in my travels across Mexico that during my current trip I’d be writing on economics I often got confused looks in return. Statistics on job creation? GDP? What exactly was I going to be writing about?
When I explained that I wanted to write about how economics affects real people and gave the example of how avocados from Uruapan cannot be sold in my home state of California, not only did the confused looks leave their faces but it generally changed into one of enthusiasm. Residents from Sonora to Chiapas would say “That’s a great thing to write about. Why aren’t Mexicans allowed to sell their avocados in California?” It was easy for many to relate with growers in Michoacan and see the injustice in our laws.
Alas, I did not receive a similar reaction when talking about Chinese shoes. Even after pointing out the similarities between California growers lobbying politicians to ban the import of Mexican avocados and shoe makers in Leon lobbying politicians to ban the import of Chinese shoes, many still were not convinced. “It’s different though,” I would hear people say, “We need those laws. The Chinese can make everything so cheap.”
But it isn’t different.
Lost in this government policy designed to protect shoe producers is the fact that the balance of payments must equal zero. If someone in Mexico wants to buy a pair of shoes made in China then there has to be a corresponding person in China that wants to buy something in Mexico. In short, the protection afforded to the shoe producers means less money going to other sectors of the Mexican economy. Why should shoe makers be protected at others’ expense? In addition, no one seems to be looking out for the interests of Mexican consumers who would prefer less expensive footwear.
What's more, the same basic principle of voluntary exchange among two parties applies. But again, despite these arguments, it was harder to evoke the same enthusiasm for people in China that had been displayed for people in Uruapan. But to my pleasure, one noteworthy person did see eye-to-eye with me on these principles: Ricardo Saldago.
After a long talk about all the work he and his organization had put into gaining access to the U.S. markets, I asked him about China. I noticed that one of their recent publications had “Ahora China” written on the front cover along with a picture of a boat outside Shanghai. Earlier in the day, I relayed to Ricardo, some had expressed a concern that China might start producing avocados itself and run Uruapan growers out of business. What did he think of the issue?
“Well,” he replied, “the world is changing. I can’t stop that.” But he continued to say that the way he looked at it he didn’t see China as some sort of enemy. He saw them instead as a billion potential customers. “If I could just get each person in China to buy one avocado a week, wouldn’t that be great for business?”
It was an admirable attitude and Ricardo’s words hit the nail on the head. The world is in fact changing and the truth is that change can be horribly tough. No one wants to make less money, struggle to keep customers, or even change professions altogether. But challenges are a part of life and are not restricted to producers.
Consumers face challenges as well. People have limited incomes and have to pick and choose what they spend their money on. More earnings going to avocados from California or shoes from Leon means less money to spend on other items. It should also go without saying that consumers and producers are not two groups at odds with one another. In real life they are one and the same people.
And while a world with increased trade can make life tumultuous, there is no denying that there are huge benefits to a dynamic economy that is the product of international commerce. Changes in the structure of the economy also create new opportunities. Think if there had been laws protecting all the agricultural jobs that once made up 80% of the U.S. economy? Desirable professions in computer programming, engineering, finance, biotechnology, and loads of other industries might never have been created.
As our meeting came to an end I expressed to Ricardo that, for me, the issue of international trade came down to the belief that individuals should be free to trade with whomever they want, even if that someone lived on the opposite side of a border. He replied that this was how he too viewed the world.
I believe it is here that one the most convincing argument in favor of trade is found. Whether Chinese shoes or Mexican avocados, we must remember that these are goods that are being purchased from another human being. They are individuals who have families, desire better lives, face challenges, yet they happen to live in a different country. What difference should that really make?
In that sense, Ricardo Salgado, by helping to knock down trade barriers, accomplished a noble goal. Back home in California I will soon be able to enjoy Mexican avocados just as I now enjoy my New Balance tennis shoes that happen to have been made in China. Not only does my freedom to buy such products lead to a more efficient economy, but it also leads to a more just one as well. That is an important point for people from the U.S, Mexico, and the rest of the world to remember as we debate globalization in the years to come.
Posted by Peter Mork at 6:43 PM | Comments | TrackBack
September 30, 2005
A Lessons from the Braceros: Don’t Trust the Government with your Money
On an overcast summer morning this past July, a group of over one hundred older men gathered in the main plaza of Aguascalientes, Mexico. They wore white cowboy hats, workers clothes, and their faces were worn, no doubt from years of hard work. Not the type of people you would expect to find at a protest, yet in a way that is exactly what they had come to do. They had turned up in numbers to pressure the government, whose offices were located just off the plaza, into handing over money that had been withheld from their wages decades ago. It was a task that was proving to be quite difficult.
These men, many now in their 70’s and 80’s, were former braceros, Mexican citizens allowed to enter the United States legally to work in the agricultural industry in the 40’s, 50’s and 60’s. Unlike many undocumented workers who currently reside in the United States, after the picking season was over the Braceros returned home to their families with the money they had made. There was no need to pay thousands of dollars to illegal smugglers or to risk their lives crossing treacherous deserts as they were able to legally travel to the U.S. to work. As a consequence of the program, U.S. employers found willing workers while braceros received better wages than possible in their home country of Mexico making both parties better off.
One aspect of this program was that during its initial years, by law, 10% of their wages were automatically withheld by U.S. employers. This money was to be set aside for savings in old age. It is with regards to this last point that a current controversy has erupted. No bracero has ever seen a dime of this money.
The leader of the group in Aguascalientes made it clear that he blamed the Mexican government. “The money was sent years ago by the U.S.” he explained, “It’s our government that has eaten it up and kept it from us.” Reading up about the situation this appears to be the case. The money was deposited in a Wells Fargo Bank in San Francisco and then transferred to a government bank in Mexico City. While the details of what happened next are unclear, I don’t think there are many doubts that their money was not saved but instead spent by the Mexican government.
Today, not surprisingly, lawyers are suing everyone involved. For its part, the Mexican government has set up a fund to compensate the workers. But it is still trying to figure out whom to give the money to and is currently compiling a list of names. Meanwhile, similar demonstrations by braceros across the country have continued, some of which have sadly turned violent. No clear solution is in sight.
These braceros had every intention to believe that the money being withheld from their paychecks was being put aside and saved for a later date. They have found out the hard way that governments are not the best instruments to save for old age. With this in mind one can draw a few parallels with the U.S. Social Security system.
By law, U.S. employers also withhold wages from workers paychecks that many think is being saved in an account. The truth is that this money, much like the braceros withholdings, is not being saved but is spent by the government as soon as it is received. The main difference I see between the braceros and those who are currently paying into the U.S. Social Security system is that today’s workers have no excuse for being duped.
Economists, politicians, columnists, and many others have made clear for decades a simple fact: no Social Security payroll taxes have ever been saved. When today’s workers retire their benefits will not come from a bank account where the government has put away their money. Instead, all future benefits must come from future taxpayers.
Excess payroll tax revenue that is represented in the Trust Fund is money that has been spent as well. The government spends excess payroll tax receipts on aircraft carriers, national parks, or whatever else it needs and places a special issue treasury bond in the Trust Fund. Unfortunately, if these bonds were ever to come due their source of revenue is also future taxpayer’s dollars, so they do not help fund the system in any way.
It is for these reasons, along with demographic changes that mean fewer workers will be supporting each retiree, that the Congressional Budget Office now estimates that there are trillions of dollars of unfunded liabilities within the system. Something needs to be done.
Since the alarms have already been sounded on numerous fronts, I though I would take the opportunity to cite a few such forewarnings chosen specifically because people might find either their sources or their timing surprising. Currently the debate over Social Security reform has cooled considerably, but there is no doubt that it will at some point be back on the table. When that time comes, the more people that are informed about the unsound nature of the program the better. Hopefully, this small collection of citations will help to accomplish that goal.
To start off with many believe that the complaints about the structure of the Social Security system are an advent of the current administration. But way back in the 1940’s, only years after Social Security was signed into law, economist Ludwig Von Mises in his magnum opus, Human Action, made the point that no savings were taking place within the system.
He wrote: "Paul in the year 1940 saves by paying one hundred dollars to the national social security institution. He receives in exchange a claim which is virtually an unconditional government IOU… The government's IOU is a check drawn upon the future taxpayer. In 1970 a certain Peter may have to fulfill the government's promise although he himself does not derive any benefit from the fact that Paul in 1940 saved one hundred dollars.... The statesmen of 1940 solve their problems by shifting them to the statesmen of 1970. On that date the statesmen of 1940 will be either dead or elder statesmen glorying in their wonderful achievement, social security."
One needs only to change the dates from 1940 and 1970 to 2000 and 2040, respectively, and the quote would be as valid today as it was in the 1940s.
More recently, economist Paul Krugman called Social Security what it is: a “Ponzi” scheme.
In 1996 in the Boston Review he correctly pointed out that Social Security had a “…Ponzi game aspect, in which each generation takes more out than it put in. Well, the Ponzi game will soon be over, thanks to changing demographics, so that the typical recipient henceforth will get only about as much as he or she put in (and today’s young may well get less than they put in).”
While Krugman is now a vocal critic of reforming Social Security, in 1996 his words rang true… and they still do.
Politicians too have frequently warned about the flaws in the program. In 1991 Harry Reid, now Senate minority leader, defended his vote to cut Social Security taxes by pointing out the fact that excess receipts from the system were not being saved but instead were being spent on other projects.
Specifically he said: "I think we have to stop spending social security monies on foreign aid and other wasteful programs and that in effect is what's being done…When we go to the vault to get that money it's going to have been used for other purposes."
I’d be interested in hearing what Senator Reid would say about his quote today.
And just a few years back, Bill Clinton’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2000 made a similar point.
It stated that the Social Security Trust Fund is “…available to finance future benefit payments and other trust fund expenditures--but only in a bookkeeping sense. These funds are not set up to be pension funds, like the funds of private pension plans. They do not consist of real economic assets that can be drawn down in the future to fund benefits. Instead, they are claims on the Treasury, that, when redeemed, will have to be financed by raising taxes, borrowing from the public, or reducing benefits or other expenditures. The existence of large trust fund balances, therefore, does not, by itself, make it easier for the government to pay benefits.”
Quotes like this show just how much of a role partisan politics is currently playing in the debate over reforming the system.
One of the favorite lines of those who oppose dealing with Social Security’s unfunded liabilities today is that “there is no crisis.” They are right. There is no crisis today… but one looms down the road.
We have been amply warned that the money withheld from our paychecks will not be financing our future retirement benefits. This money must come from the paychecks of our children and grandchildren. The fact is that if we don’t start putting our money in real assets and reform the system, our offspring will likely be saddled with an unfair burden. That, or senior citizens will have to take a large cuts in benefits. Neither option seems fair to me.
Braceros in Mexico I spoke with felt that the government is waiting until they all pass away so they will never have to pay up the money they are due. What a depressing state of affairs. While the fact that Social Security has promised to pay out trillions more in benefits than it will take in through taxes should act as a wake up call, a scene such as this should get us out of bed and working on the system’s problems today.
For in 2050, one of the last things I want to see is senior citizens in the U.S. spending their Sunday mornings trying to pressure bureaucrat politicians into paying them their promised benefits that have actually been spent decades ago. It was a sad sight to behold in Mexico, and no doubt a sadder one for anyone to go through personally. Let’s tackle this problem now to avoid any chance of such a situation.
Posted by Peter Mork at 6:55 PM | Comments | TrackBack
September 15, 2005
Wal-Mart in Teotihuacán
In a recent post over at the Wal-Mart Watch website, a leading critic of the retailer, the topic of Wal-Mart’s disregard for historical preservation sites came up. Among the many examples that were listed, one was of the Wal-Mart store built near the Teotihuacán pyramids outside of Mexico City. Specifically, they cited a Knight Ridder article from October 2004 that stated:
Wal-Mart Built Store on Traditional Mayan Grounds. “A Wal-Mart store rising near the 2,000-year-old pyramids of the Teotihuacan Empire has ignited the wrath of Mexican conservationists and nationalists, who say the U.S. retailer is destroying their culture at the foot of one of Mexico’s greatest treasures… Last week, 63 prestigious artists and intellectuals, in a letter published in Mexican newspapers, asked President Vicente Fox to stop the structure. They see it as a battle pitting Mexico’s heritage against encroaching U.S. influence. Wal-Mart is already Mexico’s largest retailer, with 664 stores in 66 cities, with sales of $12 billion.”
In the comment section Kevin Brancato made the point that the Teotihuacán example was overblown. To back up this claim he quoted my travelogue from our trip to the site.
This drew the response of another reader who posted a link to some photos of the pyramids. He claimed the photos “put it in better perspective” and they demonstrated that putting a store within 1 kilometer of the pyramids would clearly “have quite an effect.”
I thought I would take the opportunity to repost some of the photos and my response to the comments.
Here are a few of the photos that were linked to:
And here is my reply:
The photos in the link you provide do not provide a better perspective. The photo on the top right [the first photo in this post], taken from the top of the Pyramid of the Moon, is particularly deceiving as to how close the town of San Juan and various businesses are located.
The photo is taken looking directly down the Avenue of the Dead, a 2 kilometer stretch that will never be developed. If the photo were to be extended to the right you would see rows of small shops about 200 meters from the base of the pyramid that sell everything from clothing to Coca-cola.
Another kilometer past these shops is the town of San Juan de Teotihuacán. In the town, closer to the pyramids than the Wal-Mart, you will find every kind of shop you would expect to find in a small town. There are internet cafes, small grocery shops, pharmacies, and restaurants that line the plaza when you first drive in.
Following the street off the plaza towards the Wal-Mart (it is actually called “Bodega Aurrera”) you’ll see a huge “Elektra” electronics store pained bright red and yellow. Continue another couple blocks and turn to the right and you will find the Wal-Mart, tucked away in what used to be a vacant lot and further away from the pyramids than any of these businesses. A hotel located next door is similar size and color. The only difference is that the hotel has a large sign outside advertising its presence. The Wal-Mart on the other hand is one of the simpler buildings in town and looks more like a small warehouse with a parking lot.
Here is a picture of the store:
Here is a picture of the town (all businesses pictured are closer to the pyramids than the Wal-Mart):
More interesting to me was the reaction of some people we talked to in the town. We were told that the international press wanted to make it sound like the Wal-Mart was going to be put right next to the pyramids when nothing could be further from the truth. According to people we spoke with, the majority of protesters in San Juan were not residents who thought Wal-Mart was destroying culture, but store owners who did not want to face the increased competition.
Anyone that travels to San Juan and sees where the Wal-Mart is located is going to be hard pressed to come to a different conclusion.
Peter Mork in Antigua, Guatemala Monday, September 12 at 04:34 PM
If anyone is interested in reading the full account of our trip to the pyramids it can be found here.
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:11 AM | Comments | TrackBack
August 31, 2005
Really, You Went to Cuba? How Was It?
It’s a question I’ve heard many times after my one week stay in Havana and it’s a hard one to answer. In truth I didn’t find the country I expected.
A few years ago, at a friend’s birthday party, a young Mexican-American college student who described himself as left of center politically told me about his recent experience in the country. “Here, you and I have dreams and goals,” he told me. “There, people have no aspirations and don’t think past today.” He described a taxi ride he took where he asked the driver how life was in Cuba. It was fine, the driver had told him bluntly. When he pressed the man saying that things did not appear fine in the country, the driver raised a pointed finger to his lips, signaling him to be quiet. “It was bizarre,” he told me, “we were the only two people in the car and no one else was around to hear the conversation.” That scene stuck with me.
Additionally, I’ve kept up over the years on news coming out of the communist state. Everyone knows that life isn’t easy on the island. Cuba is a third world country where most of its government’s policies guarantee it will remain as such. I knew that despite a guarantee of food for every Cuban, after the collapse of the Soviet Union people were starving. I had also read that although healthcare was supposedly a right, ordinary Cubans had very limited access to medicine. And how could one ignore the thousands of Cubans who risk their lives at sea to reach Florida on what could hardly be called boats. (Click here for some recent statistics about Cuba under Castro’s rule).
Of course, I also understood that oppression was inherent within the regime. Political prisoners had existed since the days of the revolution. In 2003 Castro had added 70 more high profile cases to this number throwing journalists, poets, and librarians behind bars. To keep up on these events Mary O’Grady′s column in the Wall Street Journal was a great source on Friday mornings at work. She is one of the few columnists that keeps the repression within Cuba in the mainstream press.
Despite my research on Cuba, one thing that was unclear was what kind of contact I would be able to have with Cubans as a foreigner. I had read in a manual for working with the democracy movement in Cuba that dissidents welcomed contact with international visitors. Talking with various people about this idea during my week long trip drew different opinions. Some strongly encouraged me to do so, while others advised me I might be putting these Cubans in further danger. The last thing I wanted to do was putting anyone’s safety in jeopardy so I decided it was not worth the risk. Still, I scribbled down on a random page of my Lonely Planet Guide the address of dissident economist Martha Roque in case it did look feasible once I was inside Cuba.
Landing in Havana my nerves were a bit on edge. As a strong believer in small constitutional government, individual rights, and the idea your life is your own (not a means for the state to accomplish its ends), Castro’s government in theory stood against all these core principles. My first experiences lived up to my expectations. My bag was held up at the airport for 2 hours because I had a video camera packed inside. After a long wait standing in the declaration line during which I watched Cubans’ luggage torn apart to reveal them bringing in over-the-counter medicine and other supplies, it was finally my turn to have my belongings searched. The customs agent did not seem concerned that I might sell the camera in the country, but instead wanted to make sure that I was a tourist and did not have friends or family inside Cuba. It was the type of atmosphere I had expected.
But shortly afterwards one of my first interactions with Cubans threw me for a bit of a loop. I had expected that dealing with employees of the government, which of course is the largest employer in Cuba, would be similar to dealing with employees of the DMV back in the States. After all, what incentive did people have to please the consumer if this was not who they ultimately answered to? On top of that I had a U.S. passport, which I thought might be a turnoff to many. These assumptions turned out to be proved inaccurate.
Although it was now 2:30am in the morning, the men at the state travel agency in the airport were astonishingly friendly and helpful. They joked, laughed, and put us as ease as they diligently called all around the city trying to find us the best deal for a hotel once we learned that the hotel we had in mind was booked. They knew it was important to find us a cheap place since, as Americans, we could only spend what we carried in cash. Yet they wanted to make sure were still in a good location so we would enjoy the trip. Instead of the DMV, it felt like we were dealing with employees of a 5-star hotel. The only difference was that once a hotel was found they made sure I knew that the price they had secured didn’t include their tip, so maybe there were some incentives involved after all. Still, I was impressed.
Throughout the week I would have many more interesting experiences with people in Cuba that truthfully defined the trip.
The next day for example, only a few blocks from the hotel, I found myself in a living room that had been transformed into a private restaurant. It was here that I had some of the most interesting conversations of the trip. I had expected Cubans to be tight lipped and fearful when talking to a foreigner about their government. But in this small room, far removed from the street, they had no problems voicing their discontent. Here is an excerpt from my daily log:
Things are bad here they made clear, and not only because of the poverty. “The tourists stay in the hotels and don’t know how we really live,” they stressed.
Twice during the lunch strangers entered the paladar. The owner, who was now posted outside the room, would make conversation with them as they approached and our conversation would quiet. Each time someone entered there seemed to be an awkward feeling in the room, but soon they would start talking amongst themselves and before long the conversation had returned to normal.
They told us their salaries. Our guide, who had remained relatively quiet during the conversation, occasionally translating words or phrases we might miss, made $10 convertibles a month cleaning offices; the same cost as our lunch. The enfermero made $14. “You can’t live off this salary,” they said.
An older man who had entered the restaurant started up a conversation with the others about three young girls in one of the apartments below. Their mother was currently in jail for crime of approaching a tourist at the beach and asking for money. The man said “Fidel says there are millions of children in the world homeless and going hungry, but not one resides in Cuba. Yet look, there are three one floor below.” This reminded me of an acquaintance who had used Fidel’s same line years ago when we were debating the merits of Communism.
They talked about how while the medical care was free, no one could afford the medicine, and thus, what good was it? When I asked what would happen if we were to have this conversation on the street the enfermero told me he would be labeled as a counter-revolutionary and thrown in jail. They talked about how in the countryside the people had it worse, yet these were the same people that cheered Fidel and loved him the most. When I asked why they said it was something psychological, that they have nothing and he gives them something. In the capital, like in any capital in the world, people have more exposure to the outside world, and with this came more discontent.
It continued. They talked about how they thought the children were not getting enough to eat, how it was illegal to eat beef, and that people could be thrown in prison for owning and slaughtering a cow. “We’re like India,” the enfermero told me, “but without the religion.” “Young boys need protein,” he said, and he thought kids were not growing as they should be.
Some talked of relatives in the U.S. and how much better life was there. When I asked if they had the money and wanted to use the internet, could they? They said no. When I said that some people in the U.S. think Castro does many things well they scoffed loudly with looks of disgust on their face and simply said that these people don’t understand how life really is in Cuba.
I don’t remember every bit of the conversation but the message was clear: things are bad here, we’re denied rights the tourists have, and the outside world doesn’t know how we really living. At one point the enfermero looked me in the eyes and spoke slowly to make sure I understood: “Your system is not perfect,” he told me “but our system is much worse.” That summed up the conversation.
Like many tourists we also had firsthand experiences with Jineteros, young Cuban men who leeched onto tourists acting as guides for free drinks or some cash. I had read how this was a common practice and thus didn’t mind treating a guide and his friends to a few drinks. But I was also caught off guard by the dishonest tactics of a few we encountered later on in the trip.
Still, I sympathize with many of these young men my age. They were trapped in dead-end jobs that locked them out of any contact with tourists and the money they brought in tow. This money was the only source of a better life and so they picked up a little English, Italian, and French to try to improve their lives. Another experience that increased my empathy towards them, as well as shook me up a good deal, was watching three of these young men arrested for the crime of talking to an undercover policeman disguised as a tourist.
It was soon apparent that there was a sort of division between those who were employed in the government hotels and restaurants and those like the Jineteros who were not. While friendly, the hotel employees seemed more reserved and less willing to talk beyond surface conversations. But during my week in Havana Hurricane Dennis hit the island. This meant that once the power went out in the city, for several hours many hotel employees and guests were stuck in the lobby together listening to radio reports as the wind howled outside. This gave me an opportunity to actually have some meaningful conversations with a few of the workers. We talked about everything from sports, to their family members in the U.S. and my life there, to how they too were unsatisfied with their lives on the island. Once again I found people just like me, yet forced to live their lives in a less than ideal situation.
An additional enlightening interaction with Cubans came in our final days of the trip when we stayed in the suburbs of the city at another casa particular. Our hosts wanted to make sure that we got to see another side of Cuba to which we had not yet been exposed. It was another interesting and passionate talk. The point was not that life was perfect in Cuba, it wasn’t, but instead that it is not as bad as they felt it was portrayed by the U.S. media. And the comforts they enjoyed, partially thanks to their license that allowed them to rent out a room in their house, partially proved this point. A television, VCR, a nice apartment, and most surprisingly to me cell phone that was mainly used to send emails back and forth to family in the U.S. gave the appearance of a normal life back home.
They were also very critical of the U.S. immigration policy towards Cuba. They pulled out passports to show how they had been denied visas by the U.S. government to visit a niece for her high school graduation. It was proof to them that the U.S. wanted the image of immigrants risking their life at sea to stress how horrible life was in Cuba. Why, they asked, if the concern was for the Cuban people would they not let her simply fly to the United States if this was something the Cuban government was willing to let her do? While I was only in this suburb of the city for two days it gave me a different perspective on the country.
To add yet one more perspective, sitting in the Havana airport just prior to leaving the island, I met an employee of the U.S. Interest Section who was on the same flight. When he heard that I used to work for an economist he said in his prior job he was given the task of attempting to teach free-market economics to congressmen and congresswomen on the Hill. I enquired about his employer and had to chuckle when he said he worked for the Cato Institute. Not surprisingly, in our brief chat he offered a view of the island from a unique perspective, especially with regards to immigration. He explained to me a lottery system that allowed some of the half-million Cubans who had applied for amnesty with the U.S. Interest Section years ago to immigrate to the U.S. It goes without saying that, like me, he was no fan of Castro.
While the descriptions above in no way cover all the conversations and people I met in Cuba, they do give a decent overview of some of the people on the island that helped to form my experience. Spending just one week in the country in many ways opened up more questions than it provided answers that I was seeking. Nonetheless, it was time and money well spent. The biggest benefit I gained from the trip was that Cuba’s problems are now very personal. News stories coming out of Cuba are no longer simply names in an article, but are now, very clearly, real people suffering under an unjust government.
Once I had left Cuba, and began relaying my experience to others, I quickly realized that it was a subject that aroused deep emotions. There has been plenty of criticism.
Some have thought that I went into Cuba with a negative view of its Communist government and did not report in an evenhanded fashion. Others don’t directly challenge my experience, but instead immediately defend Cuba by quickly changing the subject to how much worse life would is in other countries, or how the U.S. itself is hardly a role model in many regards. Still others find my negative assessment of aspects of Cuba so to their displeasure that they chose to simply ignore it altogether.
Of course, my belief that Communism is an immoral form of governance did not make grey police vans appear out of thin air to haul away young Cubans for speaking to tourists, nor did it create the discontent that was apparent in so many conversations. As for changing the subject of the discussion, or ignoring my reporting completely, all I can say is that these tactics don’t alter the wrongs I did experience in the country.
It’s a little peculiar how many good-intentioned people insist on defending a system I know they deep down must oppose. If the leader of Cuba was named Bush instead of Castro there is no way they would stand for 46 years of rule without an election, of a government-run press, or of the jailing of people who speak out against the regime. I know these defenses partially stem from a desire to find some sort of an alternative to U.S. capitalism. Still, it is no excuse.
Castro does his best to get people to play right into his hands, and many do just that. The government papers read of Cuba’s organic farming projects, new graduates from medical school, and wage increases for healthcare workers and teachers. Cuba’s defenders know that all these things are good and I think many start to believe that these ends signify they can ignore the means. Castro’s hope, and it seems to work, is that by the time tourists get to the last page of the paper that justifies jailing independent librarians, all the good press will be enough of a reason to turn a blind eye to such a violation of basic rights. Again, there is no rationale for not seeing through this kind of propaganda.
On the other hand, not everyone has been as critical. A few weeks after the trip while describing some of my experiences to classmates in Mexico, one student in the class, who had lived the first 27 years of her life in the Soviet Union, had quite a different reaction. “That’s why I have no desire to go to Cuba,” she told the class. “I experienced those same things for too many years: not being allowed to speak with tourists, arrests for trivial offenses, repression of all sorts. There are just too many other places in the world I want to see before heading back to a place like that.”
Many others take a genuine interest after initially not really knowing much about Cuban life. “I’ve always wanted to go to Cuba,” I’ll hear. But in the next breath, after I’ve relayed some of my stories, they say “Wait, what do you mean there isn’t a free press?” or “What do you mean businesses were illegal prior to 1993?” Afterwards, it usually proceeds into some thoughtful conversations.
Another positive reaction is the response from Mexicans we’ve met during our travels through the country. Many of these people consider themselves left-of-center politically, but unlike some Americans, they don’t associate being left-of-center with the need to defend socialism. They already know a quite a bit about how difficult life can be in Cuba, are interested in the topic, and truthfully appreciate a first hand account of the island.
None of this is to say that one week in Havana somehow makes me an expert on the country. It’s clear to me being a foreigner and spending only a week in the country limited what I could see and, at times, I was in a little in over my head. Still, the interactions I had in Cuba were real and nothing can change that fact. While some might be put off by my reporting thinking I put Cuba in too negative of a light, in some ways I think it is just the opposite. If anything my daily travelogue only scratches the surface of the repression that exists in Cuba.
For example, one of my biggest regrets is not meeting with dissidents inside the country. These are the people who feel the wrath of Castro’s dictatorship most directly for simply daring to criticize the regime. The stories of those who Castro wishes to silence the most certainly would have been insightful and is something my reporting lacks.
Case in point, ten days after I left the country, Martha Roque, the economist whose address I secretly carried but was not able to meet with, was arrested at her home in Havana. She and along with 20 other Cubans were taken to prison for planning a small public demonstration. Shortly afterwards she was freed but 10 of the original 20 that were arrested still remain in prison. What would she have had to tell me about life in Cuba? How does she feel living under a system that has provided her with a free education, but then throws her in jail when she uses that education to think freely?
I would love to travel back to Cuba and ask her personally. Unfortunately, I still don’t know how it would affect her safety. In addition, after the publication of my travelogue and articles I have doubts I’d be let back into the country. I’ll have to wait until Castro’s regime falls, which won’t happen a day too soon.
Still, I’m an optimist. As I said at the beginning of the essay I did not find the country I expected. Instead of finding a country whose citizens live under the complete control of a dictator, I found people willing to exchange ideas, form their own opinions, and criticize the regime that would prefer they be muzzled.
In short, Castro doesn’t have enough guns to completely stifle all the freedoms he would like to suppress. That can only bode well for the future of the country and the changes it will undoubtedly soon face. These freedoms will be needed to make a Cuban government “of the people, by the people, and for the people.” The Cubans I met during my trip deserve nothing less.
Posted by Peter Mork at 4:36 PM | Comments | TrackBack
August 14, 2005
The Case Against the Cuban Embargo
"We're not waiting for the day of Cuban freedom, we are working for the day of freedom in Cuba," President Bush said in a speech on May 6th, 2004. How did he plan on encouraging this noble goal? By tightening the Cuban embargo, a policy that after more than 40 years in existence has yet to accomplish its objective of removing Fidel Castro from power.
The timing of such an announcement was no coincidence. Six months before a close presidential election, Bush clearly looked to shore up votes in the Cuban-American community to help secure a victory in the pivotal state of Florida. The question I’ve always had is why is there such support amongst the people who know Cuba the best for a policy that 1) is ineffective and 2) does more harm to the Cuban people than it does to the dictator that runs the island?
After spending a week in Havana, with the blessing of the U.S. government under a free-lance journalism license, the answer to this question is a bit clearer. Following my visit it was even more evident to me that Cuba’s socialist government would cease to exist if it could not rely on a steady flow of tourist dollars, euros, pesos, etc. that are currently keeping the government afloat. Additionally, many of those who are spending this money experience a very different Cuba than those who live their entire lives on the island.
Walking through the city the contrast is glaring. Wearing shorts, a raggedy shirt, and flip-flops, I could walk into the lobby of a hotel, order a steak at the bar, and enjoy my meal while watching CNN just steps away from the street. Ordinary Cubans passing by outside were not allowed in the hotels, could be sent to jail if they raised and slaughter a cow for beef, and if they had a television their reception was restricted to a few government stations. These, and many more glaring contrasts, made you sick to your stomach and wonder why anyone would ever want to go to Cuba for vacation.
And of course, the hotels that tourists from Canada, Europe, and the rest of the world frequent, are owned by the government in partnerships with foreign corporations. On top of that, nearly everything bought and sold goes through the Cuban government. Thus, almost every dollar spent gives Fidel more money to exercise control over the Cuban people. In 2003 this oppression was center stage for the world to see when Fidel threw over 70 journalists, economists, poets, and librarians into prison for defying the regime. He also had three men sentenced to death for attempting to hijack a ferry and make it to Florida.
Not surprisingly this arouses strong emotions. Maria Elena Alpizar Arioso, an independent journalist who lives in Havana, is but one passionate supporter of the embargo. She had this message for her two sons who reside in Venezuela: "I told them not to come here, not even to see my cadaver, while Fidel Castro is here."
But despite these facts one can look at the embargo from a different angle. To start with, the Cuban embargo does not stop any American goods from reaching the shores of Cuba. Since every other country in the world is free to buy U.S. goods, what’s to stop entrepreneurs in Mexico, Canada, Europe, and wherever else from buying U.S. products and selling them to Cuba if they desired? Absolutely nothing.
And of course the Germans have no laws prohibiting businessmen from selling Saabs to Cubans, nor do the Japanese have laws restricting the sale of Toyotas. The reason that there are so many cars from the 50’s still circulating around Cuban streets is that Fidel’s socialist policies have impoverished the country.
Yet the ramifications of the Cuban embargo are even worse. By continuing to enforce these restrictions on travel and trade, the U.S. gives Castro a scapegoat for his country’s poverty. They are poor, he states, because of the U.S. embargo. (Of course, the logic seems to escape Castro that if Communism works so well, why then is their economy dependent on the capitalistic government to the north?) And there is no doubt that Castro’s message does hold sway with some Cubans. I’m sure they wonder… why does the U.S. government have these restrictions against Cuba but not against China, which is also a communist state?
When one looks at the recommendations put forth by President Bush and his commission it only gets all the more bizarre. Since May 2004 Cubans in the United States can only go to visit family members once every three years (instead of once a year which was the previous policy), the definition of family members has been restricted to include only immediate family, and Cubans visiting family are only allowed to spend $50 dollars a day in the country instead of the previous amount which was $164.
If that were not enough, cash remittances can now only be sent to immediate family members, they remained limited to $300 per family every three months, and gift parcels must be worth less than $200 (not counting food which is excluded). The administration also further restricted the travel by students to Cuba through educational programs.
Are we not punishing the wrong people here?
All these policies, taken as a whole, sum up to an appalling strategy for dealing with Cuba. Fidel Castro and his confidants don’t suffer because of the embargo. They eat luxurious dinners every night relaxing at Fidel’s finca. Meanwhile, the Cuban people are not only denied direct flow of American goods, but more importantly they are denied contact with U.S. citizens, something that could be enormously beneficial.
I truthfully believe that people in the U.S. understand the benefits of free enterprise better than anyone else in the world. Thus, American students, travelers, and entrepreneurs would bring a unique taste of freedom to Cuba that won’t be found anywhere else. With Florida only 90 miles away, there is no doubt it would be an easy trip for many.
Economics professors could arrange trips with their students for a first hand look at the inefficiencies that are inherent in a command economy. Travelers could bring Cubans not only over-the-counter medicine, which Cuban’s sorely need, but they could also bring along some copies of the New York Times and The Wall Street Journal. Entrepreneurs, if allowed to start businesses, could demonstrate by there own actions how a market economy works. That is of course if Castro allowed such things, which I’m sure he would not.
But then that’s really the point. Instead of the U.S. looking like the villain to many people in Cuba and others across the world, the blame would be placed directly where it belongs. And back in the U.S., instead of reading headlines about the Treasury Department fining American citizens who violated the embargo, instead we’d be reading more headlines how Castro himself was restricting the travel of Americans; Americans who were doing nothing more than trying to better the lives of the people Fidel controls.
So why not Mr. President? Let’s give the American people the same freedoms we lambaste Castro for taking away. I know we will use it wisely. If you’re serious about advancing a day of Cuban liberty, there would be no better way to do it.
Posted by Peter Mork at 10:54 AM | Comments | TrackBack
August 13, 2005
Che Guevara: The Man Behind the Icon
“There is more repression of individual freedom here than in any country we’ve been to, the police patrol the streets carrying rifles and demand your papers every few minutes, which some of them read upside down. The atmosphere is tense and it seems a revolution may be brewing… In summary, it’s suffocating here.” – Ernesto Che Guevara, in a letter to his mother from Bogotá, Columbia - July 6, 1952
Suffocating is the word I would use, but not to describe Bogotá in 1952, a city in a time I know little about. Instead, I’d fast forward 53 years and this quote would be a fitting description of parts of present day Havana.
I was told by a Cuban, in a not so joking manner, that Havana has 2 million inhabitants, one million of whom are policemen. From my experience it didn’t seem too far from the truth. Uniform policemen are visible every few blocks and amongst the crowds lurk many more undercover agents. Walking through the city it is a common sight to see young Cubans randomly stopped and asked for their identification. One night, outside the restaurant I was dining in, I watched three young Cubans detained and thrown into a police van for the apparent crime of speaking to a tourist.
One gets the impression that just about everything Cubans do could be considered illegal. Dissident economist Martha Beatriz Roque, recently released from prison for health reasons, has stated that these conditions make every Cuban have a “built-in policeman.” It’s hard to sum up this kind of atmosphere in a single word, but suffocating might be as close as one can get.
How ironic, that in contrast to the quote above, this is the country that Che helped to create. His many admirers will undoubtedly say that he had nothing to do with such an environment. Che, they’ll say, was a man who fought against American imperialism. He was a voice for the exploited masses and is idolized because he lived and ultimately died on their behalf.
But is it really true that this young man, so concerned by the repression of individual freedoms in Bogotá, held to this same standard throughout his life? A few key facts make any observer not only question this assumption, but also the wisdom of those who display his portrait with such admiration. A good place to start is his actions following the Cuban revolution. One incident in particular is extremely telling.
Less than a year after the Cuban revolution, one of its original leaders was sentenced to 20 years in prison. Although Comandante Huber Matos had supplied weapons for the revolutionary forces and had triumphantly rode alongside Fidel Castro as the rebels victoriously entered Havana, 10 months later he would be labeled as a traitor. His crime? Refusing to be part of a government that had turned its back on democracy.
For this, Ernesto “Che” Guevara wanted him killed, or better put: sent to el Paredón, “the wall” for execution by firing squad. Castro eventually spared Matos’ life, fearing a death sentence would make him a martyr.
Ask yourself, should a man that openly favored the murder of someone who spoke out for democracy really be the poster child for justice in the world?
And Matos is not alone in this experience. Eusebio Penalver and Chanes De Armas are but two more that fought against Batista, only to be turned upon by Che and Castro when they publicly voiced concern over the new government’s consolidation of power. Hardly the leadership one would expect from such an idol.
In addition to this, Guevara personally shot a young man under his command for the crime of stealing food in order to set an example for the rest of his subordinates, he founded the Cuban labor camps thus setting up a system that would be a means to terrorize “enemies of the revolution” (i.e. political dissidents, homosexuals, AIDS victims), and by his own account ordered over two thousand executions while in charge of La Cabaña prison and other posts. Again and again he proved that human life posed no obstacle in reaching his goal of creating a “new man”.
Once more, can anyone tell me why this man’s portrait is on so many shirts?
In Havana, I passed many young tourists that proudly displayed Che’s famous image on a just purchased beret or t-shirt. Leaving Havana, in the airport, again Che was staring at me, this time his image tattooed on the back of an American’s calf in front of me in line. Making our way through Mexico it’s hard to find a T-shirt shop where I don’t see his glaring eyes. This man, no doubt, has a strong grip on many across the world. But surprisingly, walking around Havana, I saw more Cubans wearing American flag bandanas than glorifying this founder of their revolution.
I’ll end with another quote from Che, which is delivered in a distinctly different tone than the one I selected to begin this essay:
"Crazy with fury I will stain my rifle red while slaughtering any enemy that falls in my hands! My nostrils dilate while savoring the acrid odor of gunpowder and blood. With the deaths of my enemies I prepare my being for the sacred fight and join the triumphant proletariat with a bestial howl!"
In truth, I’m no expert on Che’s life, but the person who authored the above quote scares me, as he should you. Clearly, the young man who spoke to his mother of the wrongs in Bogotá was soon afterwards corrupted by a Marxist ideology and desire for power that turned him into nothing more than a murderer. Young “revolutionaries” should remember this fact the next time they go out shopping for a new wardrobe. We can’t ignore the crimes against humanity that Che committed simply because as an adventurous young man traveling through South America he kept a passionate diary.
Sources:
The Motorcycle Diaries – Ernesto Che Guevara
PBS - “American Experience, Fidel Castro”
The Black Book of Communism - Stephane Courtois
“Deflating the Che Cult” - Tom Palmer
“The Cult of Che” - Paul Berman
“Every Cuban Has a Built-In Policeman”- Martha Beatriz Roque
“Mass Murder by Diplomacy” – John Tiller
“Torture and Tyranny: The Real Che” – Randall McElroy