THE WORLD : CUBA : Isn’t It About Time for Washington to Accept That Castro Is in Power?

On New Year’s Day, Fidel Castro began his 37th year in power, even as conventional wisdom in the United States predicts his imminent downfall. Rep. Robert Torricelli (D-N.J.), for example, assured us in December, 1992, that, as the result of his just-enacted Cuban Democracy Act further tightening the U.S. embargo, Castro would fall “within weeks.” In Miami, groups of Cuban exiles have now drawn up blueprints for the reconstruction of the Cuban economy “in the post-Castro period.” And Sen. Jesse Helms (R-N.C.) tells us that legislation he and Rep. Dan Burton (R-Ind.) have put before Congress will give Castro “the final push.”

But conventional wisdom is rarely wise. True, the collapse of the Soviet Union and the resulting loss of Cuba’s preferential trading relationship with it threw the island into a severe economic crisis. But rather than holding rigidly to a dysfunctional command economy, the Castro government began adjusting its system to the market economies around it. It opened its doors to private foreign investment and authorized farmers’ markets, artisan markets and small private enterprises.

These reforms, the consequent expansion of foreign investment and a booming tourist industry helped the Cuban economy to recover. In 1994, the economy grew at a rate of nearly 1%; last year, it expanded at an estimated rate of between 2% and 3%. More impressive gains are expected this year.

With his economy on the mend, the Cuban army and security forces solidly behind him and facing no organized opposition, Castro is firmly in power. It is difficult to say whether he still enjoys the support of a majority of Cubans, but clearly a significant percentage continues to back him--if only because they see no alternative. As 1996 begins, there is every reason to believe Castro will not only last out the year, but that he will be at the helm five, even 10 years from now. Which is not to say that there will be no change in Cuba.

Economic reforms must be expanded, and whether Castro wishes it or not, a more open economy will increase pressures for greater political liberalization. Ten years from now, Cuba will have a far different kind of society--one most Westerners would probably call a social democracy. Cubans will doubtless continue to call it socialist and, hopefully, it will retain some of the egalitarian values of the revolution, as well as free public health care and universal education. But whatever its final configuration, it will be a system fashioned by the Cubans on the island--not one decided on in Washington or Miami.

Yet, though Cuba poses no conceivable threat to the United States and is moving in a direction favorable to its interests, the Clinton administration clings to a policy of trying to isolate the island and squeeze it economically. In defiance of international law, it refuses even to lift the prohibition on the sale of foods and medicines. It is a policy, ironically, that isolates the United States more than it does Cuba.

The vote in the U.N. General Assembly last November was 117-3 against the U.S. embargo. Only Uzbekistan and Israel voted with Washington--and they both trade with Cuba. No other government cooperates with the trade embargo. Unilateral embargoes never work. This one is no exception. Why, then, do we hold to it?

The administration says it seeks to force Castro to adopt a democratic system. Critics, however, point out that if pressure hasn’t worked in 35 years, it isn’t likely to work any better now; rather, it is more likely to cause Castro to dig his heels in deeper. Why not try a few carrots rather than relying exclusively on the proverbial stick? Isn’t that the approach the United States takes toward China, Vietnam and other governments no more democratic than Cuba and whose human-rights records are worse?

But if the administration is consistent in anything in the Cuban case, it is in its inconsistency. It says, for example, that it wishes to expand contacts between Cubans and Americans--yet it not only refuses to lift travel controls but has added new ones. Cuban-Americans are no longer allowed to visit their families on the island--unless a close relative is seriously ill, and then only once a year. U.S. academics are now required to go through a cumbersome licensing procedure before doing research or attending conferences in Cuba. Not only does the procedure itself violate the First Amendment but licenses are frequently denied. How does any of this help expand contacts? The administration can’t say.

But perhaps nowhere is the disarray in the administration’s Cuba policy more apparent than in the situation at Radio Marti, the U.S. government station that broadcasts to Cuba. It is under investigation by the inspector general of the United States Information Agency, with one of the charges being that Jorge Mas Canosa, the ultraconservative Republican who is chairman of the board overseeing the radio’s broadcasts, has used the station to expound his personal views--often in sharp conflict with those of the administration. For example, Mas disagreed vociferously with President Bill Clinton’s decision last May to send refugees back to Cuba--disagreed so publicly that he is no longer welcome in the White House. Despite that, and despite the fact that he has blocked the investigation by refusing to testify, the president keeps him on as chairman.

Also refusing to testify is Rolando Bonachea, Mas’ crony who directs Radio Marti. USIA Director Joe Duffy, supposedly Bonachea’s boss, has not only failed to fire him for insubordination, but has said he will direct Bonachea to testify only if the USIA inspector general gives assurances that nothing he says will be used against him in a criminal court.

Why would Duffy want to protect the director of Radio Marti from criminal prosecution? If he is suspected of that kind of wrongdoing, then surely he should be dismissed. So should Mas. The administration does neither. As for Congress, rather than insisting the investigation move forward, it is trying to move Radio Marti from Washington to Miami--where Mas could really control it! And all at taxpayer expense.

Bizarre? Of course, but then so is Washington’s entire Cuba policy.