Thoughts on Fidel's speech
Here is the text of Fidel Castro's message to the Cuban legislature. Here is video. One of the most interesting aspects of the speech (aside from its uncharacteristic brevity, which has been widely noted) is that it in a time of economic reform in Cuba, his words focused only on foreign affairs. I would think that current economic reforms are far more relevant to the average Cuban than U.S. policy toward Iran.
That raises the question of whether a) he simply does not support those reforms so chooses not to mention them; or b) he was asked not to mention them.
As for the foreign affairs, times change, I guess. In 2010 Fidel discusses the dangers of nuclear war, whereas in the early 1980s he wanted the Soviets to launch one.
8 comments:
Fidel has not commented once on the domestic situation since he retired. Not once in all his written "reflections." There was an important domestic/economic policy address a few days earlier from Raul - and before that from Machado Ventura. Fidel is only taking on "big issues" now.
So Fidel's no-comment on the economic reforms does not pre-suppose a) his disagreement or b) that he was asked not to mention something. Both notions are frankly absurd. Fidel, himself, authorized basically the same economic policies being talked about today more than 15 years ago, during the Special Period. And no one can tell Fidel what to say or not.
And to suggest that Fidel "wanted the Soviets to launch" a nuclear war is just plain wrong. He never wished for the USSR or Cuba to be an aggressor in any way. What he did say (and the original cables from Fidel to Khrushchev have been released to prove it) is that, should the US invade Cuba, there should be a very powerful response from the USSR - up to and including nuclear. After all, the only reason Cuba allowed Soviet weapons in was because a secret plan US to invade Cuba had been discovered by the Soviets (and dozens of false pretexts were actually proposed). And we all know how close the US was to bombing Cuba during the crisis. What Fidel wanted was a clear warning that attacking Cuba would be a red-line. He wanted to protect his country - and the many thereafter whom the US and its proxies had attacked.
In the end, the Soviets negotiated with the US, without consulting Cuba, and obtained a promise not to attack. Well, it did not take long before the US reneged on its promise and CIA offensive actions resumed, economic strangulation was strengthened and regime change became our official policy.
And if any of you still think that Fidel was somehow saying something wild or unprecedented, consider this. Let's say the USSR had discovered medium range nukes in Turkey or some other NATO country. Let's pretend the USSR gave the US a deadline to get them out and the US refused. Let's say that the USSR proceeded to launch an all out invasion of said NATO country to topple their pro-US regime and install a pro-USSR leader. What would the US reaction be? Would nuclear war not be on the table in 1962 under such dire circumstances?
Would nuclear war not be on the table in 1962 under such dire circumstances?
Only by someone stupid enough not to consider MAD
Nikita, Nikita, eres mariquita, lo que se da no se quita”
This is how the govt. led Cuban crowds chanted in favor of continuing to install the missiles. Castro favored not giving in as well, but thankfully Kruschev made the decisions himself.
Castro favored not giving in as well, but thankfully Kruschev made the decisions himself.
Anon, it was the US who caved in. So much so that the details of the deal were supposed to have never been made public. Of course, I am talking about the removal of similar weapons from Turkey and the promise of non-invasion. These were the 2 reasons the weapons were installed in the first place.
And Randy, I urge you to read some of the delcassified accounts of how nukes were considered usable by our leaders, including in a first strike capacity. The idea was to strike first hard to avoid MAD. This was 1962, when the proliferation was still seen as containable (by some madmen) if hit hard enough.
And Randy, I urge you to read some of the delcassified accounts of how nukes were considered usable by our leaders, including in a first strike capacity. The idea was to strike first hard to avoid MAD. This was 1962, when the proliferation was still seen as containable (by some madmen) if hit hard enough.
Matt, I would suggest that you read Greg's link in which Castro talked about a Soviet missile strike in the 1980's.
I realize that would be hard for a kneejerk lickspittle such as yourself to conceive of such a thing, but it doesn't surprsie most of us.
Randy, I was (mistakenly) addressing the accusations that have been thrown around re: the Cuban Missile Crisis, not the vague and mysterious allegations of one person - an "unhappy Cold Warrior" (NSA's words) who bared all to US military intelligence.
The source says Castro "pressed for a tougher Soviet line up to and including possible nuclear strikes" in the early 80s. I'll buy that Fidel probably spoke with the Soviets about their strategic posture vis-a-vis the US. But it is impossible to infer anything substantial from this statement. Unless he said specifically that Fidel called for a unilateral unprovoked nuclear strike on the US, there would be little of note. It'd be like saying the Israeli President has pressed the US for a tougher line on Iran - up to and including nuclear. It is meaningless without some context. It sounds like a reach to me by someone wanting to impress the Americans.
Also, this notion that Fidel was somehow ignorant that Cuba is 90 miles from the US and might sustain some collateral damage in a nuclear war is horsesh*t. Fidel is anything but an idiot. Kruschev assumed Fidel had to be schooled about this in 1962 as well (can't find the cables online, but they are in Fidel's recent autobiography). Fidel scoffed at the notion, saying he was being misunderstood and that if Cuba were being attacked it would be ready to sacrifice in order to teach the imperialist aggressors a lesson. Basically that he understood perfectly well that Cuba stood to lose from a nuclear war. Although I am sure Cuba also imagined the Soviets were smart enough to not bomb someplace that would negatively impact Cuba. I'd guess that the 1980s discussion was more similar to this 1962 (response to US aggression) context than the one being imagined by the NY Times and apparently our host.
Post a Comment