MSM in Denial on Castro

Babalu Blog remains a must-read during (choose one: Fidel Castro's health/the Cuban succession) crisis. While major news outlets like Reuters simultaneously assert that Castro is alive and yet sound like they're already writing his eulogy, Babalu Blog is making sure that the intelligent reader has access to the cold, hard facts. Just compare this silly bit of cheerleading by Reuters to the plethora of information available from Babalu Blog. I'll make just a few comparisons between what I was able to learn thanks to just one post (pointing to material at National Review Online) on the anti-Castro blog and what Reuters is trying to pass off as news.

First, there are the little problems of "illness", timing of death announcements, and general honesty with the media -- and the huge problem of succession -- in Communist countries. Reuters downplays all these problems (and ignores history) in an article touting Castro's power handover to his brother Raul as if it is a test for how well Cuba's "system" of choosing his successor will work.

Hopes held by exiles and other die-hard opponents that Fidel Castro's failing health would trigger a crisis of confidence in Cuban communism have been dampened by the apparently smooth succession plan set off by his illness.

The immediate appointment of his defense minister brother Raul as provisional president and calm coverage by state media have sent a strong message that the communist system will go on, even without its 79-year-old founder, Cuba-watchers say.

...

Some analysts say it could well be a smart move by Castro to test the resilience of his succession plan while he is still around and in charge, even from a hospital bed.

Horse hockey! If Castro is such a genius and is so genuinely concerned about Cuba, why did he wait to do this until he was eighty freaking years old, and why is his brother, no spring chicken himself, the apparent successor?

Meanwhile, we have this much more believable explanation of events at National Review.

In Communist societies, the fall of a dictator is often marked by a public statement about the dictator's failing health that (a) doesn't make sense, and (b) is not delivered by the dictator himself. That's what we saw on Monday night, when Cuban dictator Fidel Castro issued a "letter to the people" in which he explains that he had suffered intestinal bleeding due to stress, needed an operation, and would be in bed for several weeks. The missive was coldly Orwellian in how little it said about Castro -- and in how much detail it gave about those who were now "temporarily" assuming power.

The next day another Cuban official read a more entertaining letter in which Castro purports to explain (again in pure Newspeak) that because of the imminent threat from the United States, the details of his health are now a state secret. But there's only one detail about Castro's health that could possibly be a state secret: that he's dead.

Sure, he could be in a coma. But any student of Communism can say now with certainty that his reign is over. The only thing his heirs care about now is figuring out who really controls the estate -- and who's going to end up with it.

Castro's non-death declaration -- essentially his last will and testament -- leaves a series of key posts, and control of the state budget, to several senior leaders. But it only establishes the initial position of the players. The real game starts now, as the realities of internal power dynamics start making for unexpected conflicts and strange bedfellows. This unstable phase of the struggle for succession is highly characteristic in Communist regimes. It may last many weeks or months, and it is doubtful, if history is any guide, that all of the initial players will survive -- literally. [bold and link added]

Mario Loyola then takes a look at four people who may end up in charge after the dust settles and, for the sake of the generation of readers who didn't grow up with the Soviet Union around, does an entertaining bit of historical review. I love the ending: "And on and on went the history of the Soviet Union, until the day it finally died, when a group of would-be coup leaders explained in a press conference that Premier Gorbachev had been taken ill, and some reporters just started laughing."

And while we're on the matter of succession, Reuters runs a real gem about Brazilian President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva's thoughts on the matter.

"The succession process is a decision the Cuban people will have to take," Lula told reporters in Brasilia.

...

"The main concern of representatives from countries friendly to Cuba is that Cubans decide their future without interference," said Tilden Santiago, Brazilian ambassador in Havana.

"It would be very bad to see interventionist attitudes repeated in Cuba, in a world that has seen episodes like those in Iraq," he said without naming the United States.

Lula, you see, equates the will of "the Cuban people" with that of Castro. He would apparently rather see anything besides free elections held in a nation that respects individual rights. He has just voiced support for Castro, support for his hand-picked successor (See below.), opposition to any American-aided transition of Cuba to freedom, and implicit support for the way "the Cuban people" chose Castro, as detailed by the wife of an eye-witness.

[F]or days [after Batista fled] there was chaos in Havana. Mobs looted the casinos and smashed open the parking meters. No one was in control.

...

"What's happening in Havana?" Castro asked. [Radio sportscaster Buck] Canel began to explain: Different groups had taken over different parts of the city. Castro wanted to know specifics. "Who's in control of the police? The airport? The university?" he asked. And finally, "Who is running the radio and television station?"

Canel didn't have all the answers, but knew definitely that Castro's supporters were in charge at the radio and television station. He had been there earlier that day to make a broadcast.

"Are you sure?" asked Castro.

"Absolutely sure." Canel replied.

"Let's go then," said Castro.

He and his bodyguards left the building and climbed into a battered old American jeep. My husband and Canel got back into their taxi and followed behind as they headed towards Havana. Nearing the city, the crowds got bigger and bigger as they realized Castro was on his way. Outside the broadcasting building, Castro leaped out of the jeep and went inside. He went straight to a studio, told the technicians to switch on the transmitter, and Castro started talking into the camera. He talked and talked and talked -- for seven hours non-stop.

And that, my husband always says, is how Castro took Cuba. [bold added]

Yeah. A guerilla war, followed by anarchy, and seizure of the press by thugs, all so the windbag control freak who started the whole mess can take over the country! God, if only our Founding Fathers had thought of that!

And finally, in another story, we have this terse and rather unsatisfying comment on how a permanent succession of Raul Castro would affect United States policy towards Cuba.

The U.S. administration, which has tightened a long embargo of Cuba, has dismissed any possibility of a softer stance toward the Cuban government even if Raul Castro takes over permanently.

"Even if Raul Castro takes over"? Leaving aside the question of whether American policy towards Cuba has been effective, if it is premised on harming the regime, why should it change "even if" Castro's brother takes over? This seems to imply, among other things, that Raul is "not so bad".

Those wanting a more detailed (and therefore sober) assessment of such outcome can find it here.

Nothing suggests that Raul Castro -- Fidel's designated successor since 1959 -- will fail to take control of the country upon his elder brother's death. And nothing about Raul suggests that he would be a more benevolent dictator than his predecessor. He is reportedly more ideological than Fidel, having belonged to a Communist youth group well before the older Castro publicly declared himself a socialist. He is responsible for hundreds of extra-judicial assassinations. Fidel has described him as "more radical than I." And while he has expressed interest in Chinese-style economic reforms, he has shown no desire to retreat from Cuba's Stalinist politics, and has hinted that his hostility toward the United States exceeds even that of his brother. Though Raul is 75 years old, the upper ranks of the Communist leadership are filled with his loyalists, making it likely that his poisonous ideology will live many years longer than he.

Babalu Blog deserves daily visits as these events unfold. You owe it to yourself to have other sources of information besides the fawning liberal media, and when the offical death announcement occurs, your sanity may need it! (Actually, things are already getting quite ugly.)

What do I think? Castro has got to be in mortal peril if not already dead. Beyond that, I don't know what could occur. I think Raul has a decent shot of coming out on top, but he is too old to see Chinese-style market reforms help him, personally, hold on to power. If he does implement such reforms, the survival of "communism", Chinese-style is possible for a time -- unless there is enough popular discontent for a rebellion to occur before the economic benefits (to the regime) of reform are realized. But as with other communist states, capitalist reforms have a way of whetting a people's taste for freedom. Whether the regime in charge of Cuba is in danger of losing power any time soon depends largely on how much of its power depended on Castro himself and on how unhappy (and assertive) the Cubans are, two variables with which I have no familiarity. Certainly, U.S. policy ought to change in favor of destabilizing Cuba if the regime remains intact.

-- CAV

PS: I congratulate Babalu Blog on its recent well-deserved media exposure (e.g., Investor's Business Daily on the subject of socialized medicine in Cuba).