“Day by day and almost minute by minute the past was brought up to date. In this way every prediction made by the Party could be shown by documentary evidence to have been correct; nor was any item of news, or any expression of opinion, which conflicted with the needs of the moment, ever allowed to remain on record.”
-George Orwell, 1984
The progressive blogosphere (or at least what passes for ‘progressive’ these days) are awash lately in discussions about Cuba and the sudden decision of Fidel Castro not to seek the office of President of Cuba in the upcoming election.
Everywhere in quasi-progressive press and blogs, people are finding the courage to ask: Why is there still an embargo on Cuba? The problem is not the question — in fact, the question is the correct one. The problem is that the corporate press — from which the blogosphere generally takes its cues — has managed to cripple the debate by intentionally leaving out an important detail about the long-standing, crushing U.S. embargo against the
tiny island nation. Namely, the U.S. embargo against Cuba was never about ‘democracy’ or human rights and the U.S. officials at the time that the embargo was enacted, were open and frank about this fact.
But you wouldn’t be able to tell that from the media reports about the recent events in Cuba.
What follows is a small sample of media reports.
The Associated Press [AP] reports that:
Asked by reporters at the State Department if Washington planned to change its Cuba policy now that Castro has stepped down, Negroponte replied: “I can’t imagine that happening anytime soon.”
[…]
We would hope that the departure from the scene of Cuba’s long-ruling dictator Fidel Castro would allow for a democratic transition. … We would hope that his departure would begin this transition,” Casey told reporters.
But he added that the United States is troubled by signs that Cuba’s leadership envisions this as a “transfer of authority and power from dictator to dictator light—from Fidel to Raul.”
Still, he said the Bush administration remains willing to help support the Cuban people in a true transition to democracy. [emphasis added]
The New York Times ran a report which, despite standing at 686 words, only mentions the embargo on Cuba once and even then, only in a dismissive context. The Times reported:
Mr. Castro, whose photograph looks down from billboards across the island, is both revered and reviled by Cubans. In criticizing him in public, Cubans stroke an imaginary beard instead of uttering his name and possibly running afoul of the authorities. Those who praise him most often cite his investments in education and health care, and they agree with him that the country’s economic woes are caused not by neglect from Mr. Castro but by the trade embargo imposed by Washington.
Huffington Post contributor Sarah Stephens wins the Orwellian prize for her piece, on two grounds:
#1) Stephens writes that South Africa’s post-Apartheid democracy was “born with the help of U.S. sanctions”. This is the height or Orwellianism. It was precisely the U.S. that supported economically and politically the racist Apartheid South African regime up until the very end when it became politically impossible to continue to do so. In fact, Ronald Reagan openly called Nelson Mandela a “terrorist” and here in Canada, even as late as 2001, we still had elected Parliamentarians such as Rob Anders calling Mandela a “terrorist”.
#2) If you read through her piece, it is interesting to examine why she believes the embargo should be lifted. The reasons why Stephens believes the embargo should be lifted are not because of the massive loss of life it has caused in Cuba (more on that below). Rather, the reasons she believes they should be lifted are:
a) “the Cuba embargo sullies our image around the world”
b) “[the Cuba embargo] undermines the national interest [of America].”
c) “The embargo sacrifices the constitutional rights of U.S. citizens to travel.”
d) “[the Cuba embargo] trade sanctions cost U.S. businesses about $1 billion annually”
e) “[the Cuba embargo] den[ies] U.S. citizens access to vaccines and other medical treatments.”
f) “Enforcing the embargo drains [American] resources from the war on terror.”
Based on the above reporting, one could be forgiven for assuming that the embargo has #1) been reluctantly pursued in the interests of the Cuban people and democracy; #2) that only crazy pro-Castro communists believe that the hardships of the Cuban people are actually caused by the embargo; and #3) that the reasons the Americans should now lift the embargo is because it’s hurting Americans.
There is no need for conspiracy theories to debunk these claims that the embargo was designed to foster democracy. Had any of the media outlets reported on the actual openly stated reasons for issuing the trade embargo — reasons given by U.S. government officials at the time, the reality would be all to obvious.
A brief history of the events leading up to this is illuminating:
1953-1960: Castro, contrary to popular belief now, but openly acknowledged at the time, was anti-Soviet during his revolution against the brutal U.S.-backed Batista regime. Indeed his reform proposals were initially were pro-democratic and anti-Soviet. (see, for instance, the work of Jules Benjamin and Noam Chomsky for more on this).
January, 1960: The United States begins its first attempts to overthrow the popular Castro regime through assassination and, later, by invasion and terrorism, and re-install a client regime.
1960-1962: The U.S., having now pushed the previously anti-Soviet Castro into the Soviet sphere, now begins to characterize Cuba as a threat to the United States (itself a laughable concept) by arguing it is a ‘proxy’ or ‘base’ of the Soviets 90 miles off the tip of Key West, Florida. This, of course, ignores the fact that the U.S. was engaged in actions against Cuba as early as 1960 long before any Soviet relations had been established. Noam Chomsky, in his work Hegemony or Survival writes:
Washington was concerned that Cubans might try to defend themselves. CIA chief Allen Dulles therefore urged Britain not to provide arms to Cuba. His “main reason,” the British ambassador reported to London, “was that this might lead the Cubans to ask for Soviet or Soviet bloc arms,” a move that “would have a tremendous effect,” Dulles pointed out, allowing Washington to portray Cuba as a security threat to the hemisphere, following the script that had worked so well in Guatemala. Dulles was referring to Washington’s successful demolition of Guatemala’s first democratic experiment, a ten-year interlude of hope and progress, greatly feared in Washington because of the enormous popular support reported by US intelligence and the “demonstration effect” of social and economic measures to benefit the large majority. The Soviet threat was routinely invoked, abetted by Guatemala’s appeal to the Soviet bloc for arms after the US had threatened attack and cut off other sources of supply. The result was a half-century of horror, even worse than the US-backed tyranny that came before.
1962: United States President John F. Kennedy orders a case of Cuban cigars for his own personal use. Upon hearing that the cigars had reached U.S. territory, Kennedy promptly begins the embargo under the explicit justification that Soviet presence there posed a ‘grave’ threat to the United States.
1962-1990: The U.S. engages in decades of terrorism, bacteriological warfare and biological warfare against Cuba. This ranges from the poisoning of the domestic Cuban pork and chicken supply, the attempted destruction of the Cuban cash crop: sugar, and the October 1976 bombing of a Cuban civilian airliner by Orlando Bosch and Luis Posada Carriles who currently live in the United States despite their terrorist past. Cuba, having been denied its traditional markets for sugar export, becomes a ‘favoured export partner’ with the Soviet Union.
1991: The Soviet Union collapses. Following this collapse, the entire stated justification for the Cuban sanctions are now officially satisfied. Given the reason stated by the U.S. government for issuing the sanctions — Soviet threat — sanctions should now be lifted as there is no longer any Soviet threat in Cuba.
1992: The George H.W. Bush administration increases the sanctions. Bill Clinton, running to unseat Bush in the election, also promises harsher sanctions.
1993: Average caloric intake in Cuba plummets by 1/3 in 4 short years. (see Victoria Brittain, “Children die in agony as U.S. trade ban stifles Cuba.” The Guardian (U.K.), March 7, 1997)
1994: Mortality rates for Cubans over the age of 65 increase 15% over 2 years.
1996: U.S. sanctions increased yet again under the Helms-Burton Act which U.S. President Bill Clinton gleefully signs into law. The new harsher sanctions, are now justified under the new, post-1990 mantra of ‘democracy’ — the same mantra which, if you read the press reports, you would believe was always the justification for the sanctions. In fact, as Orwell famously wrote, this history must constantly be ‘brought up to date’ because any detailed look at the original justifications quickly discredits this contention.
1999: Severity of U.S. sanctions increased yet again under U.S. President Bill Clinton’s watchful eye.
2008: Bloggers uncritically believe media’s insinuation that the embargo has always been about democracy and human rights. Few liberals bother to research the topic. Instead, they accept the premise and support ending the sanctions regime because it’s hurting the United States. Conservatives take the matter further and support continuation of sanctions as a means of collective punishment, then turn around and deny that sanctions have any effect on the Cuban economy, but rather that Castro is to blame for all problems. Socialist bloggers, anarchists and freethinkers are left staring at each other in disbelief.
See also:
Propaganda in Action (Series)
Che Guevara: Cuban revolutionary or puppy-eating serial murderer?
Kettle calls the teapot black: Bush calls Cuba “criminal”
On intellectual honesty and the Cuba debate
Idiocy doesn’t cease being idiocy because it’s published
Dear America,
Thus, hatred isn’t all equal. Hatred towards our allies is the “most virulent of hatreds” while hatred of our enemies is somehow less “virulent” or horrendous.
Seems reasonable. The government of Canada would never support an offensive, bellicose regime having nuclear weapons. It’s true that our allies may have nuclear weapons, but they would never be offensive or bellicose with them nor would they threaten to use them except, as has been official policy since the end of the Cold War, in retaliation against a nuclear attack.
Paulitics 
How ‘non-news’ news stories reinforce the status quo
Published 9 November, 2008 Canadian Politics , capitalism , current events , International Politics , mainstream media , Media , neo-conservatism , Neo-liberalism , neoliberalism , news , News, Commentary & Op/Ed , Philosophy , Political Theory , politics , Propaganda , U.S. Politics 6 CommentsIf it was not abundantly clear before, it is certainly the case that now more than ever before, we need to draw a distinction between ‘the news’ (said with a frown in a somber, serious voice) and “The News” (said in in a charismatic, happy way with a smile).
I would like to suggest that ‘the news’ ought to be a normative conception of the newsworthiness of an event (or lack thereof) based upon its objective impact to entire cities, nations and/or the globe. Conversely, I posit that “The News” ought to be taken as a realist view of the news wherein the newsworthiness of an event (or lack thereof) is based solely on an observation of what is or is not reported in the mainstream press irrespective of normative, logical, moral or ethical considerations.
In other words, under the first conception of ‘the news’, while some events may be personally ‘significant’ (such as the death of a loved one), the newsworthiness of an event would be conditional on sociological or political significance. Thus, for instance, the death of Jon Bennet Ramsey would not have been news, however charges of Boulder Police incompetence in handling the case or corruption would be considered news. Conversely, “The News” does not encourage critical thinking about the news or the nature of the stories generated. The news is the news is the news. What is newsworthy is simply what makes the news.
While this is hardly a Socratic deduction to make, it is a crucially important one because far too much of the criticism of the mainstream media from both the left wing [1] [2] and the right wing [3] [4] today is based simply on exposing real or apparent lies, distortions and untruths. This is not to say that exposing lies or distortions in media is not a worthwhile endeavour, but rather that it is limited. It is limited because it ignores the far more omnipresent fact that a news story may be factual and accurate and correct but that it may nevertheless reinforce the status quo, dominant ideologies and systems of hierarchy and oppression.
An example of a factually correct, accurate and truthful “The News” story which I would like to suggest serves to reinforce the status quo is the story of Brandon Crisp. Recently a Caucasian Ontario boy named Brandon Crisp was found dead after having run away from his home after his parents forbade him from playing his game console. Since his body’s discovery, a media sensation has erupted. The police have conducted autopsy reports and have postulated that he died falling from a tree while the media has spent inordinate resources speculating how long he would have survived after the fall.
A brief search reveals the extend of the media frenzy which has now reached the international press.
This, of course, is nothing new. There is, in my opinion, substantial albeit as-of-yet only circumstantial evidence to support the thesis of a “Missing White Girl” phenomenon [5] [6].
With the realist conception of newsworthiness based on “The News“, not only do stories which have no impact on the city, country or globe become news, but since newsworthiness is predicated circularly on what is reported as news, the mere fact of a given “The News” story making news headlines is often itself enough to cause more news headlines in other publications. Here, the problem arises in that there are only so many column inches available and only so many resources in terms of editorial and reporting staff for any given publication, that in selecting these factually correct non-news stories amidst the torrents of incoming factually correct global events, editors necessarily leave out genuine news stories.
In closing, to illustrate this point, consider for yourself whether people would have the same impression of the greatest problems facing society if any of following stories — all of which it is important to note were omitted by the media in part because of ‘insufficient space’ — were reported in place of the death of Brian Crisp.
•18 million die annually due simply to poverty [10] [11] [12]. As a corollary, it could also be noted that the vast majority of these 18 million are non-Caucasians living in Afria despite the fact that Africa is perhaps the richest continent on the planet. It could also be reported that the poverty of Africans amidst the wealth of Africa is due largely to conscious and deliberate policies instituted by the West during the colonial period and which have been continued into the neo-liberal era.
•While 18 million people — predominantly Africans — die annually due to poverty, the European Union subsidizes every cow in the EU by $2.50/day which is more money than 75% of all Africans live on [see: Williams, Jessica. 50 Facts that Should Change the World. Cambridge: Icon Books Ltd., 2004. p. 46-51].
•The largest humanitarian crisis in the world today is not Iraq, nor Afghanistan nor Darfur in the Sudan, but rather Somalia [13]. There are now more refugees and more displaced people in Somalia than in Iraq, yet the West is positively uninterested in fixing the situation. But, despite this, capitalists and their apologists regularly praise the ‘economic miracle of Somalia’ as a glorious experiment in Anarcho-capitalism [14] [15] [16].