¡Viva Cuba!

[Afrocentric]

I've thought this over and I'm willing to give this a shot. Some of you are right, the US has and still does deal with Communist regimes today and the fastest way to a regime change is through interaction with the US. Already there are companies waiting to go into Cuba and the potential economic impacts could be high for many US companies. I'm still wary about this, but...I'll give Obama the chance to prove me and my "antiquated" thinking wrong.

[Siggon Kristov]

I just hope this doesn't end up like Burma. the regime there appears to have used America (and the rest of the West)'s softening towards it as a tool for legitimisation of its tyranny.

In Cuba (as well as Russia, Syria, and the DPRK), it's the opposite. Authoritarianism has been justified by the USA's hostility towards Cuba. The USA had made itself the enemy of Cuba, and the Cuban government used that to justify a lot of things. Now that the USA isn't seen as the enemy, it will be harder for the Cuban government to do that.

A few cosmetic changes here and there but otherwise not much has changed according to my Burmese friends . I'm not saying I'm opposed to the move (I oppose economic sanctions in all circumstances even apartheid South Africa or Nazi Germany) but it has to be made in way that won't allow the Castro brothers to use it gain legitimacy.

"The Castro brothers" (as 3 of us explained before) don't control Cuba. They don't always get their way, and they have never had ultimate control. Cuba has a party system, not a Presidential one or one based on the personality of one leader. In Cuba (as well as Russia, Syria, and the DPRK), you can get rid of who you interpret to be "the leader" but he will be replaced by someone who is just like him. It's really foreigners who focus on the Castro brothers. What Cubans tell me, as well as what friends who visited Cuba told me, is different from the narrative painted by American mass media.

[PaleRider]

I just wanna buy some nice Cuban cigars and lay on the beach drinking some rum...

[Reddy]

In Cuba (as well as Russia, Syria, and the DPRK), it's the opposite. Authoritarianism has been justified by the USA's hostility towards Cuba. The USA had made itself the enemy of Cuba, and the Cuban government used that to justify a lot of things. Now that the USA isn't seen as the enemy, it will be harder for the Cuban government to do that.

Well the Ne Win -Than Shwe regimes also used anti-Americanism/American hostility to justify their authoritarianism so I don't really see much of a difference there. Actually the anti-Americanism is usually used to justify the economic situation. The Castros will have to adapt to the new realities just like the Burmese did. I don't think that they are suddenly going to become best friends and I can still imagine Fidel ranting for hours about Americans at party Congresses and there remains many points of contention.

"The Castro brothers" (as 3 of us explained before) don't control Cuba. They don't always get their way, and they have never had ultimate control. Cuba has a party system, not a Presidential one or one based on the personality of one leader. In Cuba (as well as Russia, Syria, and the DPRK), you can get rid of who you interpret to be "the leader" but he will be replaced by someone who is just like him. It's really foreigners who focus on the Castro brothers. What Cubans tell me, as well as what friends who visited Cuba told me, is different from the narrative painted by American mass media.

Well I am not saying that the Castros have ultimate control as you call it, however they in concert with others in the Party clearly run the country in a dictatorial and authoritarian fashion. They just happen to be the ones whose names I know As for a regime collapsing upon the fall of a leader, that can and quite often happens as the leaders, especially with those who use charismatic leadership is the glue that holds everything together.

As for their multi-party system, that's just a laughable attempt at hoodwinking people. You would be hard pressed to find an authoritarian system that doesn't have a formally multi-party system these days. dictators today are much smarter about this and don't just rig elections violently or outlaw all other parties. Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan - the one who apparently sometimes boils his opponents to death has a multi-party system in his country, however at election rallies the 'opposition leaders' begin with a long speech praising Karimov and pointing out their own flaws.

[Siggon Kristov]

I can still imagine Fidel ranting for hours about Americans at party Congresses and there remains many points of contention.

Fidel had actually wanted Cuba and the USA to be good friends. He has always admired the USA. I was very anti-American. I didn't even want to speak to anyone who planned to move to the USA. It's after reading Castro's "spoken autobiography" (an interview by Ignacio Ramonet) that I actually understood how silly it was to just hate all Americans (and it changed some of my other views, like I was anti-LGBT once but I'm pro-LGBT now). Fidel had been begging for the embargo to be gone. He has always loved baseball and basketball. He's not as anti-American as the USA is anti-Fidel. Yes, he will remain critical of US foreign policy, and the government won't suck up to the USA, but Cuba has never desired to be the USA's enemy, and didn't imagine being the USSR's friend. They only turned to the USSR after being rejected by the USA for their land redistribution programmes.

Well I am not saying that the Castros have ultimate control as you call it, however they in concert with others in the Party clearly run the country in a dictatorial and authoritarian fashion. They just happen to be the ones whose names I know As for a regime collapsing upon the fall of a leader, that can and quite often happens as the leaders, especially with those who use charismatic leadership is the glue that holds everything together.

I've met Esteban Lazo Hernandez, and I've spoken with various Cubans. Even friends who went there told me that it's not like they expected. It's not somewhere everyone bows to Castro like Mobutu Sese Seko. I know a regime can collapse when a leader falls, especially when the regime really surrounds the personality of the leader, but that isn't the case in Cuba. It's really the Communist regime, not the Castro regime. The regime doesn't surround the personality of the Castros; it only seems that way outside of Cuba. In the international space of discussion (but not in Cuba itself), the Castros are given more credit and blame than they should get.

As for their multi-party system, that's just a laughable attempt at hoodwinking people. You would be hard pressed to find an authoritarian system that doesn't have a formally multi-party system these days.

I didn't say anything about a multi-party system. I meant the Communist Party dominates the political system, just like the Workers' Party in the DPRK or the Ba'ath Party in Syria (and we can argue the same for United Russia in Russia since they've maintained a majority since 2003, but maybe that will change soon).