Fidel Castro announces retirement

[Dante]

Or perhaps more accurately, Castro steps aside. It has been confirmed that Fidel Castro, ruler of Cuba since 1959, has decided not to accept the office of President once more. Claiming that this was not farewell, and that his health simply would not allow him to perform the job to the best of his abilities, he is expected to be succeeded by his younger brother.

MSN news and BBC.

An announcement that will be greeted with mixed feelings, one feels. President Bush is said to welcome the decision as a step toward democracy (but then he would), but without Fidel at the helm, Cuba's independence of ideology may not last much longer.

[alchemi2]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/7252109.stm

Whilst i accept all the negatives of the Castro years, you can't help but wonder what Cuba would be like if the USA had lifted it's embago on trade, when the rest of the Eastern block broke up.

Would the poverty and oppression have continued or could Castro have implemented and succeeded with social change.

[Dunenewt]

Is Raul taking charge then?

[Dunenewt]

Oh Dante, you are getting slow in your old age, we already have a topic about this.

[alchemi2]

Well Raul has been semi in charge for the last 12 month or so. Fidel has just sort of offically handed over power.

[alchemi2]

Actually we both posted at same time, weird ain't it.  ;)

[Dunenewt]

Yes, I guess he never really recovered from the operation.

Just read this on BBC:

The National Assembly is widely expected to elect 76-year-old Raul Castro as his successor, although analysts say there is speculation about a possible generational jump with Vice-President Carlos Lage Davila, 56, a leading contender.

[Dunenewt]

Were you both watching the 12 O'clock news?

[ordos45]

Or you know, we could hope for a real democracy...yeah unlikely I know.

Either way, with Fidel gone, maybe someone would do something that would help their legacy.  Hint Bush hint...something like lifting sanctions that have only punished Cuba's poor and not the elite.

Edit:  Topics merged for convenience sake.  Hope no one minds.

[Dante]

According to this, I win. :P

Why yes, I did screenshot the post order. Why yes, it is awfully petty of me. Why no, I really don't give a crap.

Still, thanks for merging the topics. Much tider.

Lifting sanctions would be a good start, but Bush needs to wait for a bit longer, I'm guessing.

[Dunenewt]

Hehe, so be it, Dante wins.

Yes, lifting sanctions would be a very good start, but as I stated in another thread, unfortunately all the Presidential candidates have the same views on Cuba, at least they state they do to the public, due the amount of anti-Fidel Cubans in Florida, whose votes they cannot afford to lose.

[alchemi2]

Dante wins

Although the merge keeps my topic title but say Dante started it, curiouser and curiouser.  ;D

[Edric O]

Well, it had to happen sooner or later, and this comes at a good time - the US is too busy in Iraq and Afghanistan to try any military action against Cuba.

Farewell and thank you, comrade Fidel. For 49 years you have shown the world what it means to have a real backbone, and you have been a beacon of hope for all nations of the third world.

VIVA FIDEL! :)

Would the poverty and oppression have continued or could Castro have implemented and succeeded with social change.

Well, Cuba already has considerably better standards of living than its Carribean and Central American neighbors (though they are still poor by Western standards, of course).

[alchemi2]

Well, Cuba already has considerably better standards of living than its Carribean and Central American neighbors (though they are still poor by Western standards, of course).

Sorry i wasn't clear there Edric0, I meant do you think he could have improved upon that success without the Embargo or would they have fell foul of western influence without the restraints of the Embargo.

[Mihail]

Well, it had to happen sooner or later. It's just sad, though, that this probably means a gradual switchover from communism to capitalism, and once that happens - can you say McDonald's and Starbucks invasion? On one hand, standards of living will probably rise... On the other, this just opens Cuba up to globalisation. Which is the main problem I have with this.

Although, I can't truthfully say that I know much of anything about Raoul or the other candidate, though, so we'll see how this goes...

[Edric O]

Sorry i wasn't clear there Edric0, I meant do you think he could have improved upon that success without the Embargo or would they have fell foul of western influence without the restraints of the Embargo.

I'm not sure. The embargo wasn't so much of a problem before 1989, when Cuba traded mainly within the CMEA. Cuba's economic ties with the Soviet Union were extremely beneficial to Cuba, since the Soviets intentionally paid high prices for Cuban products in order to help the Cuban economy as their bastion in the Western hemisphere. I don't think Cuba could have gotten a better foreign trade deal from anyone else, so - embargo or no embargo - the best thing for Cuba to do prior to 1989 was to trade as much as possible with the Soviet Union and other CMEA countries.

After 1989, of course, the situation completely changed. That's when the embargo really started to hurt Cuba, since it no longer had any trade partners to speak of. There is no question that Cuba would have done much better over the past 18 years without the embargo.

As for the possibility that trade with the US would erode the Cuban planned economy and promote capitalist tendencies, yes, that is a real concern. It wouldn't be a problem if Cuba were more democratic, but, as things stand now, there is a real possibility that the United States could simply bribe high Cuban officials to make them implement capitalist reforms.

[Sneakgab]

'' It wouldn't be a problem if Cuba were more democratic, but, as things stand now, there is a real possibility that the United States could simply bribe high Cuban officials to make them implement capitalist reforms.''

Well countries that are officially but not de facto democratic countries like America and SA are clearly not immune to corruption. As for de facto democratic country, what difference does the process of power make on the corruptibility of the indivual? Well, I suppose someone who got to power on his relative merits (not generally much probably) is likely to have more integrity than someone gaining power by defualt or via corrupt non-democratic means.

Well, I doubt America will leave Cuba alone. I mean, how many times have tried to assasinate Fidel? honestly... Bay Of Pigs anyone?

BTW, is America seemingly allowed to do whatever it wants simply because it's got the biggest guns and an economic hold (or, atleast the oligarchy that most probably drives the govt into many of these actions do).

Well, I guess Bay Of Pigs was during the Cold War. That time seemed to provide free tickets to the soviets and americans to do whatever they hell wanted.

If the power holders in Cuba are vulnerable to corruption, then I'd say that this pretty much spells the end to any serious communism in Cuba.

One must wonder though, wouldn't Fidel have thought of something this obvious? One can only hope that he has prepared someone to take his place.

[Edric O]

Well countries that are officially but not de facto democratic countries like America and SA are clearly not immune to corruption. As for de facto democratic country, what difference does the process of power make on the corruptibility of the indivual? Well, I suppose someone who got to power on his relative merits (not generally much probably) is likely to have more integrity than someone gaining power by defualt or via corrupt non-democratic means.

No country is immune to corruption, but some are less corrupt than others. Generally speaking, democracies - even flawed and limited democracies like the United States or South Africa - are far less corrupt than dictatorships. This makes sense if you think about the fact that "corruption" basically means running the government for your own private gain rather than doing your job as described in the law. Dictatorial governments are far more likely to be run for private gain than democratic governments, because a dictatorial government doesn't have to worry about a displeased population voting for the opposition at the next election, or about a free media exposing the various corruption scandals.

The best weapons against corruption are: (1) democracy - people's control over the government; and (2) a free, critical and inquisitive media that works hard to expose any problems with the government. Cuba does not have #2, and it has only a little bit of #1. So corruption is high - though not as high as in your average dictatorship, because revolutionary idealism can also serve as a (temporary) weapon against corruption.

The United States, by the way, is quite corrupt because democratic control over the government is weak and because the media is not very independent or critical (e.g. Fox News).

If the power holders in Cuba are vulnerable to corruption, then I'd say that this pretty much spells the end to any serious communism in Cuba.

Every human being is vulnerable to corruption. Power corrupts. Or it attracts the corruptible. Either way, the effect is the same.

I still have hope for Cuba, though. Fidel's great merit is that he has kept some revolutionary idealism alive. If there is enough of it to cause his successor to implement democratic reforms without altering the basic principles of the economy, Cuba may well be saved.

One must wonder though, wouldn't Fidel have thought of something this obvious? One can only hope that he has prepared someone to take his place.

Yes, right now Raul is in charge, but everyone knows that he can't stay up there very long - he's too old. Hopefully Fidel has someone else in mind to succeed Raul.