The New York Times Offers Propaganda for the Castro Regime as an Op-Ed
Today’s New York Times runs one of its usual idiotic op-eds from a contributor. It is not quite as bad as the time the paper ran the late Libyan dictator Gaddafi’s op-ed on how the world should deal with Israel, but it comes close.
This time it is from the pen of Harvard lecturer Jonathan M. Hansen and is titled “Give Guantanamo Back to Cuba.” Mr. Hansen’s argument is simple: We should give the base back to Cuba, from whom we leased it in 1901. He says it represents the American presence on the island that “has been more than a thorn in Cuba’s side.” The real issue is, Hansen claims, our continued occupation of Guantanamo itself, since the base is nothing more than an “imperialist enclave.”
Mr. Hansen’s very language is a give-away. It makes me wonder if the name is really a pseudonym for Fidel or Raul Castro, since it is the kind of article one expects to read in the Cuban regime’s propaganda sheet, Granma. The author condemns “America’s long history of interventionist militarism,” and he continues with the argument that our entrance into the Spanish-Cuban War was not one on the side of Cuba against its brutal Spanish rulers, but one meant to take over the island for the United States. As he writes: “The United States wanted dominion over Cuba, along with naval bases from which to exercise it.”
The rest of Mr. Hansen’s op-ed touts the usual leftist interpretation of U.S.-Cuban relations: our country exploited Cuba for our control of its resources, leaving the island as nothing but a giant plantation which the United States controlled and benefitted from. He notes that between 1900 and 1920 44,000 Americans flocked to the island, “boosting capital investment…to just over $1 billion from roughly $80 million.” Not one word from the author about the benefits to Cuba from this capital for industrial development, which made the island a place of prosperity with a growing middle class.
Hansen clearly does not know his history. As Mark Falcoff writes in his book Cuba:The Morning After, U.S. intervention had nothing to do with economic pressures. “American business interests in Cuba,” he points out, “had traditionally been on the side of the Spanish.” Unlike Mr. Hansen, who writes that the administration of Cuba by General Leonard Wood after the war’s end was a disaster for the Cubans, Falcoff writes that although Wood ruled “with arrogance and insensitivity, …the accomplishments of his administration were many.” He demobilized the Cuban army, improved public health, eradicated yellow fever, developed Cuba’s communication network, and set up its first public schools. In contrast, all Hansen wants his readers to learn is that there was “no real independence left Cuba” after the U.S. occupation under Wood took place.
As for the U.S. investment, Falcoff notes that “the economy was almost instantly revitalized by the massive entry of American capital, which invested not only in sugar, but railways, utilities, tobacco, minerals and other resources.” As Cuba developed, it actually was the one country in the region that had a higher standard of living than any other, including Mexico. But Cubans compared themselves not to their Latin neighbors, but to the standard of living in the United States, a comparison to which, of course, it suffered.
As for Guantanamo, Mr. Hansen takes the Cuban regime’s position that it “remains a glaring symbol of hypocrisy around the world.” Thus he urges President Obama to return it to the Castro government and “put the mistakes of the last 10 years behind us,” which would then “rectify an age-old grievance and lay the groundwork for new relations with Cuba.” Thus we would restore our integrity and show real leadership by admitting our wrongs in practice, and supposedly then win the friendship of the Castro brothers and the people of the entire world.
Actually, if the prison regime of the Castro brothers had free elections and a genuine free Cuba emerged as the result, the United States could then return the obsolete base to a new government, using the base, as Falcoff puts it, as part of the “agenda of normalization talks” and giving a new Cuban government “valuable negotiating leverage or even the potential for significantly more sizable compensation for continued use of the facility.”
But to give the base to the current repressive Cuban regime would be nothing less than to hand Fidel and Raul Castro a major political victory, which they would hold over everyone’s heads to prove how the American government was nothing but a paper tiger — as Chairman Mao once put it — that could be easily forced to bend to the will of its revolutionary enemies.
As the editors of the New York Sun wrote today in the website’s editorial, “The long record of Cuba will show that even though it has had far more than any nation’s fair share of injustice, the worst injustice of them all was that perpetrated by the Stalinist dictatorship of Fidel Castro. Why in the world would anyone want to give anything back to a regime that is still under the grip of his communist party?”
Of course, the rhetorical answer is that no one in their right mind would want to do that except, of course, if one is a leftist academic who currently teaches at Harvard University. So do not look for an op-ed in the paper of record soon that tells its readers about the continuing political repression and imprisonment of Cuban dissenters that regularly takes place and never seems to come to an end.
Rather, we can expect more op-eds on various issues showing how all the foreign policy dilemmas facing the United States stem from our own imperialist ventures and arrogance of power, and how they can easily be resolved by simply appeasing our enemies and giving them what they want in advance, without receiving any quid pro quo. After all, to ask anything of a country like Cuba is to the Times’ editors simply more of an example of imperial attitudes. I suspect they wish the late Herbert Matthews were still alive, so he could go to Cuba and publish reports about how the Cuban people love their government, and how wonderful Fidel and Raul Castro are. I guess since they no longer have such a reporter on their staff, we can be thankful for small things.
‘…although Wood ruled “with arrogance and insensitivity, …the accomplishments of his administration were many.” He demobilized the Cuban army, improved public health, eradicated yellow fever and developed Cuba’s communication network and set up its first public schools. In contrast, all Hansen wants his readers to learn is that there was “no real independence left Cuba” after the US occupation under Wood took place.’
Cuban independence? Fuggedaboutit! RR would rather talk about General Wood’s achievements. Amusingly enough, RR reminds me of apologists for Castro’s Cuba, who list all of the supposed accomplishments of the communist regime but deride those who cite the lack of freedom on the island.
Any discussion of Cuba must involve the Bicardi Family. They financed and fought the war of Independence from Spain, and financed Castro to overthrow Batista. The Story of Cuba is the Story of Bicardi Rum family, intertwined and still playing out.
This just shows you why fewer and fewer people are reading the New York Times anymore. If you read either “The Spanish War: An American Epic 1898″ by G. J. A. O’Toole or “Spanish American War, 1898″ by Albert A. Nofi, there was a lot of support from the Cubans themselves to overthrow their Spanish rulers. Spain treated Cuba almost like a slave labor camp (almost like it is now) and the average Cuban had precious little love for the Spanish. True, America went into this war for a lot of wrong reasons (the famous “yellow journalism” battles between Hearst and Pulitzer, and the destruction of the USS Maine was probably never really destroyed by a Cuban mine), but in the end we certainly did the right thing by liberating Cuba from Spain.
Cuba was better off after their Spanish masters were thrown out and their economy flourished after America came in. Were there inequities in the Cuban social system after America took over? Sure there were, but that also is an end result of capitalism. It is also good to remember that the plight of working-class Americans, people who worked in the coal mines and factories in this country (let alone the blacks in the South), wasn’t that hot either in 1898. But although America in 1898 wasn’t a perfect society, many people did have real financial opportunities at the turn of the century which gave them hope for a better life. It was the same in Cuba after the Spanish-American War. At least a lot more Cubans had a shot at real prosperity than they did before the war.
As for Guantanamo Bay, I feel a lot like Ronald Reagan did about the Panama Canal. We fought for it and we should keep it. It is a really small piece of Cuba, but a critical one. It was incredibly critical during the Cuban Missile Crisis and, as long as there is a hostile communist regime on the island, it will remain an important strategic naval base. Perhaps we would give it back if Cuba became a solid democracy. After all, we gave our bases in the Philippines back after it was evident that democracy had taken hold there (even though we probably could have kept them if we really forced the issue). Why couldn’t the same thing happen in Cuba? As soon as the communists are overthrown in Cuba and democracy takes a firm hold there, then all things are possible.
I am endlessly puzzled by the advocates of socialism. They willfully blind themselves to the lessons of history. Who is this guy? A Harvard lecturer? Does harvard have an affirmative action program for the learning disabled?
I remember when I was a kid, on one of the rare nights I was allowed to watch Johnny Carson, there was a chinese guest on the show. A little discussion broke out about liberty in America and the chinese national said; “Yes, you are free in America, free to starve!”
I was no more than 12 years old and immediately it popped in my head; ” Yeah, we are free to starve, but we arent starving, you are.”
A 8-12 year old can figure it out. A harvard lecturer cant.
A perfect example is the recent idiocy on display by the venerable whoopie goldberg; “It’s a great concept. On paper it makes perfect sense. But once you put a human being in power, it shifts. We saw it in Russia, we’ve seen it all around the world. It’s nuts. But, I keep my fingers crossed.”
Willful blindness. Idiocy.
“A perfect example is the recent idiocy on display by the venerable whoopie goldberg; “It’s a great concept. On paper it makes perfect sense. But once you put a human being in power, it shifts. We saw it in Russia, we’ve seen it all around the world. It’s nuts. But, I keep my fingers crossed.”
You don’t mention the context but is it safe to assume she was talking about the Obama Presidency in the People’s Republic of America?
Don’t forget the long Soviet presence in Cuba and China’s accord to build communication facilities next to the massive Russian technical-electronic spy center at Lourdes that monitors US Atlantic Fleet operations. Keep in mind Castro’s dispatching military to aid communist revolutions in Africa in the 70s and note this 1978 French intelligence report cited by Arnaud De Borchgrave in his chapter in Terrorism: How the West Can Win linking West European terrorist groups and Middle Eastern terror groups to Cuba: “The terrorist activity of some of them stems from the Tri-Continental Conference held in Havana in January 1966. By 1972 the structures of this terrorist international became operational. The mother cell was in Cuba at the headquarters of the Tri-Continental Organization of People’s Solidarity, which the Soviets control through the Cuban secret service.”
The NYT has a long and sordid history of covering up the atrocities of ruthless Communist Dictators around the Globe; particularly Stalin and Castro.
– give Hawaii back.
The New York Times is symptomatic of what is wrong and has always been wrong with the Ruling Elite in NYC.
If I recall correctly, there was a VERY strong pro British element afoot during the Revolutionary War in NYC.
During the Civil War the Government of NYC was strongly in favor of the Confederacy.
Before WW2 there were pro Hitler, pro Nazi rallies in Madison Square Garden.
During the 30`s many influential NYC residents LOVED Mussolini.
Josef Stalin was also idolized by many of the NYC so-called “intelligentsia”.
NYC attracts many of both the best and the worst people in the world. Lately the worst people seem to have gained the upper hand.
“It has served to remind the world of America’s long history of interventionist militarism.”–Hansen
He said, turning a blind eye to the Cuban government’s long history of interventionist militarism in Africa and Latin America.
And Gitmo isn’t any more of an imperialist enclave than the nation of Cuba itself.
Hansen is a fatuous ass, and a big old hypocrite…like all lefties.
Remember to communists and sympathizers communism or whatever they want to call it “has not been done right yey” therefore it gives them the excuse to support a failed system that brutalizes both opponents and supporters alike. elitists think they know whats best for the uneducated masses, thats why they will always support and sympathize with systems that give ultimate poer of 1 group over another as long as its a group they can use to their advantage
Mr Hansen should immediately get on a plane and visit us here in MIAMI- I know a few exiles who could clue him into reality.
Ah! gotta love revionsist history of the world ala socialists.
So Cuba suffered under USA? not Castro and Che?
the prisons are full, the people not free, few white men are left and the msotly poor blacks are discrimnated by the whites who control the ‘party”, the infrastructure is crumbled, the people go hungry- and he argues for MORE of it?
some people (despite their paper degrees) are just too stupid to live- makes you want to just smack ‘em upside the head
The Times, their office is in New York, their heart is in Cuba. But you won’t see them driving around in a rusted 1957 DeSoto.
A Harvard academic. Beyond contemptible, beyond facile. Grubby, dynastic Cuba, a place where a brother takes over from the dictator. No wonder that buffoon Castro decreed 3 days of mourning for Kim Jong-Il!