Why Despots Hate Barack Obama

Less than two weeks into President Obama's term, Fidel Castro has already gone on the attack. Castro, who once spoke favorably of Obama, condemned him this week for refusing to unconditionally return the Guantanamo Bay military base to Cuba and for, in Castro's view, supporting the killing of Palestinians by Israel. Why the about-face?

Obama may have the most progressive attitude towards Cuba of any president elected since Castro led the country's socialist revolution in 1959. During his electoral campaign, he said that he wanted to loosen restrictions on Cuban-Americans traveling to the island and sending money to their friends and relatives there. With Castro's health failing, some pundits have speculated that Obama could be the president who eventually lifts the Cuban trade embargo altogether, assuming Castro's death leads to an opening of the country's political system.

But none of that does Castro any good. The identity of the United States as Cuba's principal foe is indispensable for the Castro family's political power. Like North Korea's Kim Jong Il, Iran's Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and many other less-well-known antagonists, Fidel Castro and his brother Raul use the supposed oppressions of the United States to gin up nationalist sentiment at home, distracting their people from the more immediate problems of poverty, hunger, insecurity and lack of political freedom.

Disgracefully, George W. Bush's administration and its international exploits gave these leaders as much ammunition as they wanted. Barack Obama has already charted a different course, yet Castro and the others continue to assail him. The reason is simple; a gesture of friendship by the United States would hurt their political positions by taking away a convenient whipping boy, even if it might help their people.

Indeed, in the Castros' case, the lifting of the embargo could eventually mean the end of their political power. An unchecked stream of American tourists, American products, American media and American money would present a formidable challenge to the Castros' Cold War rhetoric. It would hardly be surprising, were the embargo to be lifted, if the Castros themselves acted to limit trade (while taking a percentage of the proceeds to augment their decidedly un-socialist riches).

Obama has hinted on several occasions that he wants to thaw relations between the United States and the countries with whom the Bush administration refused to have any direct contact. Sadly, the biggest obstacle to his efforts may be those same countries' despotic leaders, terrified of losing one of the few political assets they have: a reliable enemy.

Comments

[Florencia Benson]

Castro's critique towards the US goes way beyond a simple economic policy -no matter how oppressing-. It is philosophical, ideological and social --lastly AND least economic. The economic embargo is a policy instituted by the US in response to these critiques -not the other way around. In Cubans' eyes, this is only a coherent, though miserable, "punishment" on behalf of the US. What I'm trying to say is that, even with the embargo lifted, Castro's antagonism wouldn't move an inch. Obama would have to do a lot more than that to meet socialists' and communists' support. Aiding banks and cutting taxes to middle classes ain't gaining *their* support. Although, as I said before, Castro made some pretty positive comments towards the new administration.

Come on now, "demoagogue-in-chief"? Don't turn all "ff" on me. We both know that "demagogue" is merely an ethnocentric, empty concept that suits any narrative as convenient. And, mind you, not Cuba's nor Venezuela's model are my favorites. All I'm saying is, if "despots" suits the socialists, "oppressors" suits the capitalists just as well. Only they have much, much more power. (Come to think about it, don't the world's leading economies hold almost absolute power? who's above them? no, seriously. What *can't* they get away with... and please don't insult my intelligence with the "international organizations" fairy tale).

[Daniel Altman - Huffpost Blogger]

A despot is a ruler with absolute power or a tyrant. I think Kim Jong Il falls into this category, and Castro did as well in his time. Chávez still has some limits on his power, but who knows for how long. Ahmedinejad is the least powerful of the group, clearly. Perhaps "demagogue-in-chief" would be better?

If backing UN sanctions against North Korea and Iran makes the US an oppressor of those nations, then so are all the other members of the Security Council. Any of them could have vetoed the sanctions. Yes, the US is a big mover at the UN. But do you think China or Russia wants to see either North Korea or Iran with nuclear weapons? The US takes the lead, the US takes the flak, but China, Russia and the Europeans do just as much "oppressing".

As for the embargo against Cuba, it is an oppression that I consider ridiculous. But, as I wrote in the piece, I think it suits the Castros just fine.

[Florencia Benson]

PS: so "oppressor" is too strong; how do you feel about "despots"? ;)

[Florencia Benson]

Daniel; I was referring to Castro's letter, where he summarizes a few direct interventions by the US, including biological weapons and such --not to mention the trade embargo that still lingers on the island. Is that not oppresive at all?

Despite appearances, I would not assimilate Chavez to Castro so easily. If only, because the latter is actually capable of backing up his statements with rational arguments...

And on the "international aid" --oh, don't get me started. Natural resources bought as cheap commodities and then re-sold as expensive manufactures to the same countries... If I were earning such benefits, I would be sending "aid" abroad as well.

Finally --"the United States is just one participant in sanctions imposed by the United Nations..." No. It's not "just one participant" --it's a major participant. Not the only one, granted; but still a major player.

[Daniel Altman - Huffpost Blogger]

On the "supposed oppressions," please read carefully. Venezuela's Hugo Chávez speaks about the United States as though an invasion were imminent. That qualifies for "supposed" in my book. North Korea's leadership takes the same posture when speaking to its own people. Yet the United States is just one participant in sanctions imposed by the United Nations against North Korea http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indexkor.htmm). The same is true for Iran http://www.globalpolicy.org/security/sanction/indxiran.htmm). Are these "oppressions"? Perhaps they are, if you're a dictator trying to buy a new Bentley. But the international community, including the United States, still ships thousands of tons of food to North Korea every year http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7405497.stmm).

As I wrote, Bush gave plenty of ammunition to these guys by taking an imperialist stance and invading other countries with disastrous consequences. But when someone like Chávez calls the United States an oppressor of Venezuelans, is that really true? The two countries are far from best friends, but "oppressor" sounds too strong to me.

[Florencia Benson]

I can see your point. Nonetheless, I think the "enemy-needs-a-scapegoat" hypothesis is a very limited one.

First of all, all leaders need one. Obama himself has a few.

Second, Castro is still praising Obama and the US citizenship for electing him. http://www.pagina12.com.ar/diario/elmundo/4-119596-2009-02-06.html (in Spanish, I'm afraid).

Third, Castro exposes very good reasons, thoroughly justified, to question some of Obama's major decisions. This, I believe, constitutes part of democracy --each being able to express and hold a position, even if it differs from one's own. Isn't it. His ideological differences do not make him a dictator; in any case, how he uses his power might or might not. The points expressed by Castro in this public letter are, in my opinion, completely legit, regardless of the author.

Last, but not least, I agree with Jon and nomoredead: what's that about the "supposed opression"? Perhaps you are better informed and, unlike me, have certain proof that those allegations are false.

[JonSmiley]

We all love Obama, that is true, but to I was very disturbed by your phrase "supposed oppression". What does that mean?

That is very offensive to say when you're talking about Cuba, Iran, or Venezuela.

[nomoredead]

Very true..

[MPeter]

Thanks Daniel. I think you put your finger on it. The Castro power stranglehold is threatened by Obama's progressive and humane policies towards Cuba. So, it is natural for Castro to try and pre-empt Obama. But, they will loose.