Postmortem on the Pontiff’s Cuban Tour: On Balance, Freedom Benefitted More Than Fidel

(Washington, D.C.): On the eve of Pope John Paul II’s historic visit to Communist Cuba, the
William J. Casey Institute issued a Perspective entitled Our Man in
Havana? Will John Paul II
Help Liberate Another Communist Country or Secure Life Support for Castro’s Regime? href=”#N_1_”>⁽¹⁾ The
early returns on this question are now in: It appears, happily, that the Pontiff remained
true
to his historic commitment to personal freedom and economic opportunity — a commitment
born of personal experience with Communist totalitarianism, a commitment that played an
indispensable part in the destruction of the Soviet empire.

Solidarity With Those Who Yearn for Liberty

Now, with his courageous words to the Cuban people — Catholic and non-Catholic alike —
the
Pope rekindled their hope that they will not be denied such fundamental liberties much longer.
Among the most inspiring of his statements were the following:

• While speaking at the University of Havana on 23 January, the Pontiff lauded the legacy of
  Cuba’s famed Father Felix Varela y Morales — a Nineteenth Century cleric the Holy Father
  described as an “exemplary priest…and undeniable patriot”:

“He was the first to speak of independence in these lands. He also spoke of
democracy,
judging it to be the political project best in keeping with human nature, while at the
same
time underscoring its demands. Among these demands, he stressed two in particular:

“First, that people must be educated for freedom and responsibility, with a personally
assimilated
ethical code which includes the best of the heritage of civilization and enduring transcendental
values, so that they may be able to undertake decisive tasks in service of the community. And
second, that human relationships, like the form of society as a whole, must give people suitable
opportunities to perform, with proper respect and solidarity, their historic role giving substance to
the Rule of Law, which is the essential guarantee of every form of
human concourse
claiming to be democratic.

“I am confident that in the future Cubans will achieve a civilization of justice and
solidarity, of freedom and truth, a civilization of love and peace which, as Father Varela
said,
‘may be the foundation of the great edifice of our happiness.'”

• On 24 January, the Pope discussed the individual’s vital role in bringing about freedom for
  his
  society:

“The Church calls everyone to make faith a reality in their lives, as the best path
to the
integral development of the human being, created in the image and likeness of God, and for
attaining true freedom, which includes the recognition of human rights and social
justice.

“In this regard, lay Catholics…have the duty and the right to participate in public
debate on
the basis of equality and in an attitude of dialogue and reconciliation. Likewise, the
good of
a nation must be promoted and achieved by its citizens themselves through peaceful and gradual
means. In this way each person, enjoying freedom of expression, being free to undertake
initiatives and make proposals within civil society, and enjoying appropriate freedom of
association, will be able to cooperate effectively in the pursuit of the common good.“

As to the Embargo

To be sure, the Pope also expressed on numerous occasions his strong opposition to the U.S.
embargo on Cuba and his concerns about the inhumane excesses of capitalism as practiced in
some countries. Fidel Castro obviously calculated that such statements would be worth the risks
associated with the Pope’s public calls for freedom in Cuba if they provided moral authority —
or
political top cover — to the Communists’ desperate, last-gasp bid for financial life support.

Ironically, if Castro’s ploy worked and the embargo were lifted, it seems quite
likely that the
effect would be precisely the kinds of capitalism that John Paul II most legitimately criticizes —
the crony capitalism or klepto-capitalism practiced by authoritarian regimes of the Left and the
Right. This mutation of the principle of free markets and economic opportunity amounts to an
odious Faustian arrangement, involving governments that ruthlessly guarantee “political stability”
and businessmen willing to pay handsomely for the opportunity thus afforded to exploit the local
workforce.

As it happens, President Clinton’s moral difficulties and the Pope’s courageous departures
from
Castro’s party line clearly upstaged those in the Administration and their motley allies — including,
in addition to Fidel’s usual apologists a number of captains of industry, past and present
politicians, libertarians, ex-diplomats, and retired general officers — who are championing the
early partial, if not complete, dismantling of the embargo.

Enter The New Republic

The case for ending the U.S. embargo has been further undercut by a devastating analysis
published in this week’s edition of The New Republic, reportedly Bill Clinton and Al
Gore’s
favorite public policy magazine. In an article entitled “Castro Inconvertible” (see the attached),
Charles Lane — the journal’s new editor — argued persuasively that the only thing worse than
perpetuating the embargo would be to dismantle it under present circumstances:

“Even if the embargo is bloody-minded and atavistic, Castro’s position — ‘Socialism or
Death’ — is many times crazier.

“Embargo-lifters believe the myth that trade and ‘engagement’ with the West
brought down the Soviet Union.

“[For example,] the results of our dealings with Beijing hardly support the view
that trade leads to the spontaneous generation of freedom.”

Lane dissects with devastating effect the several rationales being served up by the
embargo-busters. The first is especially noteworthy: “The one concession Fidel Castro most
fervently
demands from the United States is also the one policy change that would bring him down. If you
think this sounds too good to be true, I agree.”

The Bottom Line

The Center for Security Policy applauds the most important parts of Pope John Paul II’s
message
to the Cubans — a message of hope and opportunity through political freedom and other basic
human rights. It also concurs with Charles Lane’s bottom line:

“The embargo may be a futile gesture, but it is not an empty gesture. It sends a
message: the United States will have nothing to do with the tyranny 90 miles
from its shores. A definitive verdict on the hard line must await Castro’s
inevitable passing. My hunch, to paraphrase Castro himself, is that history will
absolve it.“

– 30 –

1. No. 98-C 11, 21 January 1998.