Kevin Baldeosingh
The death of Fidel Castro has revealed the anti-democratic mindset of many leading citizens of T&T and the Caribbean.
I'll begin with our first citizen: President Anthony Thomas Aquinas Carmona in his statement said, "We as a Nation and the Community of Nations in the Caribbean are truly grateful for all assistance and support that Cuba under Fidel Castro's stewardship has rendered to our burgeoning democracies in the Region." Clearly, Carmona sees no contradiction in a dictatorship supposedly helping democracies. But this is not surprising since many of Carmona's actions since he was appointed President show that he prefers authoritarianism to democracy.
In similar fashion, UWI Vice-Chancellor Hilary Beckles, in a gushing media release described Castro as "an indomitable spirit born in opposition to oppression and bred in the trenches of the search for the just society." Since Beckles is a historian, his apparent ignorance of the oppression of Cubans is particularly inexcusable. It is also more than a little ironic that, as leader of the Caribbean reparations lobby, Beckles should be so fulsomely praising a man whose Revoluci�n resulted in a state where blacks comprise 30 per cent of the population but 90 per cent of the prisoners.
In respect to Trinidadian politicians, UNC leader Kamla Persad-Bissessar issued a statement that was both misleading and tendentious. She describes Castro as "the son of a sugar cane farmer," presumably to identify her party with him. In fact, by the time Castro was born, his father had worked his way up from being a labourer for the American-owned United Fruit Company to the owner of a ten thousand-acre farm employing hundreds of workers. Kamla goes on to note that Castro "seized power from the dictator General Fulgencio Batista" with nary a hint that Castro became a far more oppressive dictator than Batista. Rather, she goes on to state that Castro became "a hero for the Cuban masses and progressive people everywhere." However, since between 60,000 to 80,000 Cubans have died trying to leave the island since the 1958 Revoluci�n, this suggests that the "masses" aren't as enamoured as Castro admirers think. As for "progressive people," this logically means that Kamla considers everyone who criticises Castro on the basis of his denial of freedom of movement, freedom of expression, and lack of an independent judiciary to be backward.
By contrast, the statement from Prime Minister Keith Rowley was masterful in what it didn't say. Dr Rowley simply expressed "deepest condolences to the Government and people of Cuba and to his family," noted that T&T had "long enjoyed cordial diplomatic relations with Cuba" and that Castro's passing "an end of an iconic period of history." On the other hand, Rowley presumably approved the decision to fly the T&T flag at half-mast last Friday in order to pay respects to a murderous dictator.
Of course, MSJ leader David Abdulah and other trade union leaders revealed nothing new in their eulogies of Castro, since they have always supported left-wing dictators who, apparently don't oppress like right-wing ones. It is worth noting, however, that trade unions were actually quite powerful under Batista, and all trade unions were illegal under Castro's regime.
This hero-worship of Castro cannot be attributed to mere ignorance. Raffique Shah, a 1970 mutineer and former trade unionist, in a Sunday Express column last week presented a pose of balanced appraisal, writing, "His critics and detractors will argue that these and other achievements came at a high cost in human rights violations, the suppression of dissent, the primacy of the Communist Party and draconian laws that spelt death or imprisonment for those who dared to disagree with the leader or the government. These charges are true, although I'm sure the numbers have been exaggerated."
So Shah is certain that the human rights abuses are exaggerated but, like most other people, he swallows without twist-face the bunk about Cuba's advanced health and education sectors. But how can you decide who is presenting reliable figures–the Cuban government or Cuba's critics? Well, history tells us that authoritarian rulers always lie about their nation's accomplishments and that Communist regimes have, without exception, been inefficient and murderous.
For the few people not blinded by ideology, here are some statistics compiled by Cuban exile and author Humberto Fontova in his 2013 book The Longest Romance:
�2 Child mortality rate of 12 per 1,000 (T&T is 14 per)
�2 Maternal mortality rate 33 per 1,000 (T&T is 29 per)
�2 Abortion rate of 0.7 per live birth
�2 Average Cuban height (an indicator of nutrition) has decreased by three inches over the past 25 years
These facts suggest that, contrary to the assertions of Castro's apologists, history will not absolve him. In making this prediction, his admirers are quoting Castro from his 1953 trial for attacking a military base, where he said, "Condemn me, it doesn't matter, history will absolve me." What they perhaps do not know is that Castro was himself quoting a major 20th century leader, who in his 1924 trial for an attempted coup said, "You may pronounce me guilty, but the eternal court of history will absolve me."
That leader was Adolf Hitler.
Kevin Baldeosingh is a professional writer, author of three novels, and co-author of a history textbook.