Tag: Cuba

  • Hurricane season in Cuba

    A cold front blew in off the Florida Straits, sending waves over Havana’s famous corniche, the Malecón, and announcing what has traditionally been the end of the hurricane season. After 13 named storms, it seems as if the 2025 season finale was Hurricane Melissa, a humdinger. She paused south of Jamaica, getting herself into a lather, before killing 32 on that lovely island and causing at least $7 billion of damage.

    Fortunately for Cuba to the north, Jamaica’s mountains plucked the murder from Melissa’s eye – but she still cut a devastating trail through this bigger island’s eastern reaches a day or so later.

    As Cuba’s communist leadership donned military fatigues and began its traditional mobilization for such events, my phone lit up with messages from friends around the world. They had seen images of the vast, spiraling cloud, top-lit by lightning and imagined apocalypse.

    But we, unlike many, were fine. Hurricanes are surprisingly localized. You really have to be within 50 miles of the eye to feel the full force and Cuba is huge, the same length as California. And its government is good at the immediate stuff. No fatalities were reported on the island.

    But I appreciated the concern. If a Cuban city does take a direct hit, it will be calamitous. Storms that pass 50 miles away from you might be OK, but in the eye of the storm, even in well-prepared countries, the suffering can be terrible.

    I’ve been sideswiped a couple of times, which was frightening enough. But pros such as my friend Patrick, who as a CNN correspondent is forever stepping into the path of tempests with names like Beryl or Dorian, says emerging after a direct hit is terrible. “You are greeted by scenes of damage so extensive as to be otherworldly,” he says. “Cars flung into trees, houses cleaved from their foundations, trees stripped of every leaf.”

    Cuba’s long-term financial woes mean the island’s beautiful old cities are falling down, even in clement weather. Habaneros tend to walk in the middle of the street because of the danger of falling masonry. Last month, an entire house collapsed in the old town, killing a mother and son.

    Any hurricane, let alone one the size of Melissa, would probably annihilate a Cuban city. Which would be a pity. Cuba’s capital has been a storied wonder for five centuries; a recent visitor reminded me that Norman Lewis once called Havana “the most beautiful city of the Americas.” A big storm has the power to bring that story to an end, along with untold lives.

    So, we depend on luck. In summer I obsessively watch the National Hurricane Center’s website, tracking storms forming off Cape Verde which grow stronger as they head west. It feels like being a pin in a bowling alley, watching the ball coming down the lane and praying it will miss.

    Cubans have developed a whole slew of coping mechanisms. First they turn to the sainted Dr. José Rubiera on the news. For many years the director of the National Forecasting Center, his mustachioed cool acts like a balm as he rationally describes a storm’s possible paths.

    If a hurricane begins to get close, the Cuban authorities declare an estado mayor de la defensa civil and show off the advantage of being an authoritarian regime. In Jamaica in October, people refused to flee. One resident of Port Royal was quoted as saying the last time she took to a shelter, “females weren’t safe and to top it off, people stole our stuff.” In Cuba, by contrast, the residents had no choice. Some 735,000 people were moved whether they liked it or not. But they were safer.

    Here in Havana, when hurricanes approach, an eerie calm takes over. People sweep their roofs of junk and stones or anything else that might shatter windows. Queues form for bread, often to the last minute. I once ran to the bakery with my brother-in-law as electricity transformers exploded above our heads. “Do we really need a loaf this much?” I remember shouting.

    Afterwards, the unafflicted gather aid for the stricken. And then it’s the long road back once everyone has forgotten. My colleague Eileen recently returned with a convoy to the areas affected by Melissa. She tells me of a dam overflowing, washing away houses and livestock, of misery piled on misery.

    Without money to rebuild, Cuba now carries the scars of past storms. One of my favorite places on the island is a village called Isabela de Sagua. In 2017, Hurricane Irma passed by, a terrible storm because she never touched land but instead sent the sea inland all along the coast. Isabela was all but washed away. There’s a restaurant there I like where boats arrive under sail (there isn’t a lot of gasoline at the moment) to unload fish, crab, oysters and lobster. The food costs pennies and tastes sublime. It feels like the restaurant at the end of the world.

    But putting aside my suspect love for trauma tourism, that’s not great, is it? Such stoic tenacity from residents is not really enough. One day a hurricane is going to prove Cuba’s authorities inadequate. Nonetheless, for now, and until June next year, I will be able to sleep soundly, certain my family is not going to be wiped out by a storm with a silly name.

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s December 8, 2025 World edition.

  • In Cuba, a revolution is over

    In Cuba, a revolution is over

    If you’ve ever thought of visiting the crocodile-shaped island of Cuba, or run into someone recently returned from sultry nights in the country’s salsa halls, there’s a good chance you’ll have heard the phrase “See it before it changes.” And I don’t mean because of Hurricane Melissa.

    The idea is that the centrally planned communist state, one of the last on Earth, will soon morph into America and a balmy Brigadoon full of people unencumbered by money, modern cars or Alexa will evaporate.

    I think most people, if they knew what Cubans have endured, wouldn’t use that phrase, which is up there in its lack of tact with “they’re poor but they’re happy.”

    But shortly after I arrived on the Caribbean island almost eight years ago, the same idea was put to me by a Cuban, although in a different way. She asked: “When does a revolution end?” That’s a question that has stayed with me. I remember my sweaty journey in from Havana’s José Martí International Airport that January 2018 evening. Having visited the island regularly before, on the cusp of turning 50 I’d come for a three-month break. I’m still here, married, with a four-year-old son.

    The roadside billboards advertised nothing other than the government’s answer to my friend’s question: “¡Hasta la victoria siempre!” (An imperfect translation: “Until the eternal victory.”)

    At the time, the country was still enjoying a great burst of hope that had begun in 2016, when then-US president Barack Obama flew in to “bury the last remnant of the Cold War.” The Rolling Stones played and Chanel used Havana as a catwalk.

    Yet, the city still had rebel undercurrents that I remembered from earlier visits, a population of offbeat expats, some on the run from the US authorities. There were fraudsters and rogue CIA agents, Black Panthers and South and Central American liberation fighters – or terrorists, depending on your point of view.

    It was still easy to meet Cubans who, if critical of the day-to-day work of the government, supported the Castro brothers’ grand project. The young intellectuals, the artists and musicians, were often offended by the abuse being thrown across the Florida Straits by the exile community in Miami.

    The older generation were even more bonded to the revolution. Having answered Che Guevara’s call to subsume personal ambition to the common good, they were living on the promised reward of free healthcare and food.

    The government, however, which controlled everything including the importation of food, was low on funds, a situation soon worsened by the Covid pandemic. Shortages cut in, with days-long lines for essentials. Botched economic reforms then saw inflation take hold and pensions and wages reduced, in real terms, to what is now less than $10 a month.

    Soon many people were pondering when a revolution ends. In July 2021, protests erupted and were put down with force. Private entrepreneurs were given permission to import food, sold at prices far beyond what most people could pay. The rations of rice, sugar and beans distributed by state bodegas faltered.

    While there have always been people who go through the street-corner rubbish bins, their numbers blossomed. Older people, their dignity still showing in their neat if frayed clothes, began to ask for money from other Cubans on the street. The fumigators who used to demand access to your house to spray for mosquitoes disappeared.

    A grand exodus began, with estimates of up to 18 percent of the population leaving for the US, Latin America, Spain and oddly – due to a lack of visa restrictions – Serbia. Some fools even went to Russia to fight against Ukraine. The obsolescent electricity grid collapsed, again and again, and the water system with it. Power cuts have become a fact of life.

    I live a far more privileged life than most of my neighbors, but I find the water shortages hard. Nothing spells “¡Hasta la victoria siempre!” like glancing up to see your child pooping on the floor when you haven’t had running water for two days. But, like the frog in boiling water (lucky him), somehow we seem to get used to it.

    It’s not easy. As I write, the awful Hurricane Melissa, which caused chaos in Jamaica, carried on through Cuba’s east, bringing landslides, flooding and misery. Meanwhile, there is an outbreak of chikungunya fever, spread by the mosquitos that the state can no longer afford to spray against. (Chikungunya means “contortion” in Tanzanian Makonde, and is as much fun as it sounds.)

    Yet, to my surprise, I still feel that same thrill as I take the sweaty journey in from the airport, past the increasingly faded slogans on the billboards, through this city of crumbling grandeur, to what’s become my home, looking forward to being among the Cubans once more. This is what I hope to write about in this column as we move forward.

    So, when does a revolution end? I was talking to my Cuban friend again, blathering on about how her question could currently be asked of the American Revolution. But she remained focused on Cuba’s own, saying: “Maybe it’s already over, and we just haven’t noticed it.”

    This article was originally published in The Spectator’s November 10, 2025 World edition.

  • Why have Democrats mainstreamed a terrorist?

    Why have Democrats mainstreamed a terrorist?

    On September 26, the Chicago Teachers Union, representing all of the teachers in America’s second largest city, posted on X upon the death of “Assata Shakur” AKA Joanne Chesimard, that “The life and legacy of a revolutionary fighter, a fierce writer, a revered elder of Black liberation, and a leader of freedom whose spirit continues to live in our struggle.”

    That would be one way to describe Shakur.

    Another way to describe her would be as a woman convicted of the murder of New Jersey police officer Werner Foerster, a former FBI most wanted terrorist who was broken out of jail by armed comrades and eventually escaped to Communist Cuba, where she lived under the protection of the totalitarian Communist Castro regime for the remainder of her life.

    And Foerster’s murder was far from the only serious crime Shakur was charged with or accused of involvement in. In another instance, she was identified by John Powis (a politically progressive priest) as part of a group of people who robbed his church and threatened to “blow his head off” if he did not cough up $1,800 that had been earmarked for the poor from church funds.

    That one of America’s largest teachers’ unions, fattened by millions of taxpayer dollars, would choose Shakur as a figure to lionize reveals much about the modern left. While the union celebrates radicalism, the most recent test scores for Chicago Public Schools show fewer than one in three students can read at grade level. Fewer than one in five can do math at grade level. Chicago does this while spending almost $20,000 per student, almost two thirds more per student than is spent in my “affluent” school district in Montana. As is so often the case with the left, radicalism goes hand-in-hand with the collapse of basic governance and competence.

    There is no meaningful political differences on these questions between Democrat unions, political activists, the media and academia and many Democrat politicians. All heads of the same leftist hydra. The AP described Shakur as a “black liberation activist” on X – as if this was why she was punished rather than for her crimes. The Washington Post praised her “near mythical status” while USA Today noted her as a “potent political symbol, representing for some a valiant soldier in the war against an oppressive and racist police state.” At least three Democratic Congresswomen, none of them marginal figures, went online to praise her after her death.

    Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley also honored Shakur both online and on X. Pressley, whose district is just 20 percent African American, represents most of Cambridge, Massachusetts, including Harvard University, the pinnacle of the elite left-wing establishment. She could make her statement fully confident in her warm reception in the hallowed halls of academia. After all, Angela Davis, an African-American radical whose guns were used by the brother of her then boyfriend to kill a judge and several others in a courthouse (landing her on the FBI’s 10 most wanted list), was eventually fully rehabilitated by the establishment, serving for decades as a distinguished professor at UC Santa Cruz and receiving an honorary degree from Cambridge University this year, all while declining to repudiate her radical past.

    Other politicians praising Shakur included Congresswoman Yvette Clarke (head of the Congressional Black Caucus) and Summer Lee, who represents Pittsburgh in Congress. Clarke Tweeted that “If there is a single truth in the world it is that Assata died a free woman. May she rest in power and paradise for all eternity.” Clarke had no thoughts at all, of course, as to the victims of her terror campaign.

    Meanwhile, the Democratic Socialists of America announced “Rest in Power, Assata Shakur. The American state brutally oppressed Assata and her Black Panther Party Comrades,” praising the “solidarity” and “loyalty” of the totalitarian Cuban regime that kept her from justice. Zohran Mamdani, the likely next mayor of New York City, is a DSA member who declined to condemn the stance when pressed by the New York Post.

    What we see with the Chicago teachers is the normalization of radicalism on the American left, where there is increasingly no real and meaningful gap between the establishment and the extremists. All political movements have dangerous fringe figures, but the Democrat media, academia and political establishments have embraced some of their worst and most violent ones.

    There were a few honorable exceptions, of course, New Jersey Governor Phil Murphy called the celebration of Shakur “shameful and depraved.” But Murphy a 68-year-old white male former investment banker, does not likely represent the future of the Democratic Party. The people celebrating Shakur do.

    And that should frighten us all.

  • Democracy in Peru is under attack

    Democracy in Peru is under attack

    For over a month, Peru has been in a state of near-constant unrest. In December, as the legislature threatened to impeach President Pedro Castillo for, among other things, allegations of corruption, Castillo tried to dissolve the legislature and “govern through decrees.” By all measures, this was an attempted coup, and it resulted in his impeachment (by a vote of 101-6), arrest, and condemnation from left and right. In his place, Vice President Dina Boluarte was sworn in as president, having denounced her former boss’s attack on the country’s democracy.

    This was a success in a country that has seen six new presidents in the past seven calendar years. The Congress has repeatedly been at odds with the president, and scandals have rocked administration after administration. The legislature has launched or threatened to launch impeachments seven times since 2016.

    Since his arrest, Castillo’s supporters have protested, often violently, and thrown a wrench into the country’s economy. Their main goals are swift elections and a constitutional convention (which tends not to turn out well). Some of the protesters are linked to communist and anti-democratic groups. About 47 protesters have died and hundreds have been injured in encounters with riot police, who have been accused of using excessive force. One policeman was also killed and hundreds more have been hurt. So far, the government projects that the protests have cost the country approximately $1.3 billion. Further animating the unrest are underlying grievances in the country’s Indigenous population over, among other issues, poor economic conditions.

    The attacks on Lima have not only come from inside the country but from Latin America’s growing population of leftist leaders. Mexican President André Manuel López Obrador has refused to recognize Boluarte as president of Peru, and granted Castillo’s family asylum. Bolivian President Luis Arce, ally of former Bolivian autocrat Evo Morales, declared, “We have the Peruvian people in a fight to recover their democracy and also to recover the right to elect a government that represents them.” Colombian President Gustavo Petro, though he has acknowledged that Castillo’s attempted takeover was ill-conceived, has largely sided with the former president. Argentina has followed a similar line.

    Criticism has come from the United States as well. Twenty Democrats in the House of Representatives have called for the Biden administration to cease security aid for Peru over the police’s excessive use of force. Among the signatories are high-profile progressives, including Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, James McGovern, and Rashida Tlaib. The letter downplays the violence that protesters have committed, stating, “While we recognize that a small number of protestors have participated in violent acts, the Boluarte government has a responsibility to distinguish criminals from peaceful protestors and to protect those participating lawfully.”

    Latin America is seeing a regression of democracy that threatens its stability. Brazil suffered a January 6-style riot by far-right supporters of former president Jair Bolsonaro, and now faces an activist Supreme Court that has stifled speech and a president with an extensive history of corruption and cooperation with leftist dictators. Colombia elected Petro, a far-left former guerrilla fighter, as president in 2022, who has since overseen warming ties with socialist Venezuela dictator Nicolás Maduro. Chile, which elected leftist Gabriel Boric as president in 2021, has suffered massive social unrest in recent years, as Boric attempted (and failed) to institute a new constitution in a September 2022 referendum that many feared would have undermined the democratic system. President Nayib Bukele has tightened his grip on El Salvador, and Obrador has undermined Mexico’s democratic structures. Add to this sorry list the countries already under established dictatorships: Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela.

    Then there is the problem of Chinese and Russian influence in the region. This has been steadily increasing in recent years, with the most visible example being Russia’s relationship with the Venezuelan regime under Maduro. China has stripped away some of the few countries that recognize Taiwan, including Panama, the Dominican Republic, El Salvador, and Nicaragua. Paraguay may be next to join Beijing’s warm embrace. Chinese investment has proven to be a powerful tool to bring Latin American countries over to its side, and Beijing has provided loans worth over $137 billion. Argentina in particular has tight economic ties with the PRC, and joined the Belt and Road Initiative in 2022.

    All of this does not bode well for the United States. Now is not the time to cut aid to Peru but to keep a steady hand. The US should make clear that while it opposes any unwarranted violence on the part of state forces, it stands ready to help Peru in any way it can. That should include a vociferous defense of Peru’s democratic government and condemnation of the anti-democratic forces trying to overthrow it.

    Boluarte is Peru’s president and should be treated as such, with those countries that have fanned the flames of discontent pressured by the United States. Doing so could be as simple as making explicit, very public statements that Boluarte’s government is legitimate. Any statements should emphasize that questioning the Peruvian government’s legitimacy undermines democracy, and those that do so both worsen the situation and imperil Peru’s sovereignty.

    There is also reason to believe that Latin America’s leftist dictatorships may be involved in aggravating the unrest. If this is the case — and the US should investigate — then putative actions should be swift and public.

    If President Biden believes — and he should — that the world is facing a struggle between freedom and autocracy, then Peru should not be placed on the back-burner. There may be some cognitive dissonance involved in the administration finding itself in direct opposition to leftist protesters and leftist governments in Latin America. But if the US is to make a principled stand for what it claims to believe, then Biden must overcome that.

  • The Cuban Missile Crisis has become a cultural touchstone

    The Cuban Missile Crisis has become a cultural touchstone

    At the beginning of 1962, President John F. Kennedy had high hopes for a peaceful year with the Soviet Union, the United States’ most dangerous adversary. On December 30, 1961, Kennedy issued a statement offering his good wishes for the new year to Soviet Premier Nikita Khrushchev and the Soviet people. Ten months later, in October of 1962, the US and the Soviet Union were on the brink of war.

    The Soviets had moved missiles into Cuba, which initially went undetected by US intelligence. On October 14, an American U-2 spy plane took pictures showing missile base construction taking place in Cuba. The next evening, American analysts realized the implications of what that construction meant. National Security Adviser McGeorge “Mac” Bundy decided not to awaken Kennedy with this information, aware that his back was hurting and that he had gone to bed early. Bundy figured Kennedy could wait for a full briefing on Tuesday, and that the president would need his rest for the difficult days ahead.

    Bundy was right. The next two weeks — those 13 days — came to constitute the Cuban Missile Crisis, one of the most celebrated episodes in American history. It has been memorialized in books, analyses, and a host of pop culture formats. Kennedy’s deft diplomacy, and willingness to rein in his generals, particularly Curtis LeMay, led to a peaceful if tense resolution of the crisis. This success did more than anything to help secure Kennedy’s legacy.

    The links between the crisis and culture are legion. At the time, Kennedy himself suggested that his restraint came in part from one of his favorite books, Barbara Tuchman’s The Guns of August, about the miscalculations that led to World War One. During the crisis, he is reported to have said, “I am not going to follow a course which will allow anyone to write a comparable book about this time, The Missiles of October.”

    The period was a fraught one, with indications to those around the Kennedy team that something was amiss. Kennedy mistress Mimi Alford recounted that he watched the Audrey Hepburn comedy Roman Holiday during the crisis instead of one of his usual assignations with her. It was one of only 48 movies he watched during his abbreviated time in the White House. (Jimmy Carter would watch exactly ten times as many — 480! — during his single presidential term.)

    Another proof point of the administration’s focus came from the tennis courts. The Kennedy circle was obsessed with tennis, and a number of them, including Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, took lessons from St. Alban’s celebrity tennis coach Allie Ritzenberg. Art Buchwald later joked that the Cuban Missile Crisis had its origins on the St. Alban’s courts. That wasn’t true, but Ritzenberg did know something was amiss when the punctual McNamara began missing his 7 a.m. lessons that October. As Ritzenberg later recalled, “Bob was so punctual, took his tennis so seriously, that even before we heard anything about it we knew something big was happening during the Cuban Missile Crisis period.” In the aftermath, “When he came back and started playing again, nothing was said, but I figured things were settled.”

    The aftermath of the crisis led to a great collective sigh of relief. The Kennedys celebrated Halloween shortly after it ended, with the president joking that they should not display a jack-o’-lantern on the Truman Balcony as people could mistake it for Fidel Castro. Jackie Kennedy happily went out trick or treating with the Kennedy children in Georgetown, temporarily fooling Kennedy aide Arthur Schlesinger, who initially did not recognize Mrs. Kennedy in her costume.

    More evidence of collective relief came from the release of Vaughn Meader’s comedy record The First Family, featuring impersonations of the Kennedys and their circle. The album was an enormous hit, becoming the top-selling record in American history at the time. Meader became such a big star as a result of his JFK impersonation that after Kennedy was assassinated, comedian Lenny Bruce reacted by saying, “Vaughn Meader is screwed.” He was right. Kennedy’s tragic death marked the end of Meader’s career.

    In subsequent years, the crisis became an essential element of the Kennedy legend. Kennedy aide Ted Sorenson, just 34 at the time, was by the president’s side throughout the 13 days. He later recounted, “People like to pooh-pooh Kennedy’s ‘style’ so-called.” And yet, he noted, “It was style that enabled him to establish communication with Nikita Khrushchev that in the end helped both of them avoid a nuclear holocaust at the time of the Cuban Missile Crisis. So, I don’t pooh-pooh style.”

    The near-miss also helped create the legendary red phone that connected Washington and Moscow. This hotline, known as “the most famous phone in the world,” was initially more of a Teletype than an actual phone, as real-time voice translation was seen as insufficiently reliable. It was never actually used.

    The crisis has now become a pop culture staple, featured in movies and TV shows. In a move Kennedy would have appreciated, George W. Bush used the Cuban Missile Crisis movie Thirteen Days to lobby Kennedy’s brother, Massachusetts Senator Ted Kennedy, on Bush’s No Child Left Behind education reform legislation.

    This month, we will see a host of articles commemorating the 60th anniversary of the Cuban Missile Crisis. It’s always worthwhile to celebrate our history, but it’s not as if this incident is in any way a forgotten one. The Cuban Missile Crisis was resolved, but it is still with us today.

    Tevi Troy is a senior fellow and director of the Presidential Leadership Initiative at the Bipartisan Policy Center. He is the author of four books on the presidency, including most recently Fight House: Rivalries in the White House from Truman to Trump.

  • Sanctions on Russia won’t work

    Sanctions on Russia won’t work

    Another battle in the West’s sanctions war against Russia is set to begin. The US and its NATO allies have put together what they’re calling a strong package of economic restrictions on Russia in response to its military buildup near Ukraine’s border.

    What’s in the package remains a secret but it appears to focus on Russia’s energy sector. A State Department spokesperson told NPR on Thursday that the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany would remain inoperable if an invasion happened. The Financial Times suggested that other new Russian gas developments are also on the sanctions list. The UK wants Russia booted from SWIFT, the Belgian financial messenger services company, while the West also floated the idea of sanctioning Russian President Vladimir Putin.

    Sanctions remain a favorite of world leaders in the absence of ground or air warfare. The United States Treasury Department lists sanctions against Cuba that date back to at least 2000, while Syria’s sanctions history goes back to 2004. The list does not include sanctions previously placed on countries in the 1900s.

    But do sanctions work? Former Florida congresswoman Ileana Ros-Lehtinen noted in 2004 that “some of these [Syrian sanctions] may not have a strong economic impact, but it certainly has a diplomatic and symbolic impact.”

    She appears to be right. Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said on Friday that Russia will consider any new sanctions to be an end to its diplomatic relationship with the West. Russia’s top trading partners include China, Belarus, Turkey, and South Korea, meaning any potential economic hit from the West would see Moscow work more closely with its non-Western allies.

    Let’s not forget the Russian government already knows how to withstand the weight of economic pressure. Its diplomatic relations with China grew tighter in 2014, something that Nigel Gould-Davies of the International Institute for Strategic Studies tied to US sanctions. A bank owned by a Putin ally received a Russia government contract after being sanctioned by the US in 2014. That helped the ally avoid any major financial losses from American penalties.

    What the United States and Western politicians have chosen to overlook regarding sanctions is the human element. In their attempt to suggest that people are too poor or scared to escape sanctioned countries, they neglect to address the fact that a sanctioned government typically centralizes its power, stirring up enmity against the West to strengthen its own position. Putin still runs Russia. Nicolás Maduro remains the leader of Venezuela despite its presidential dispute. Kim Jong-un calls Pyongyang home even though he’s cut off from everyone in the world except Russia, China, and India. Old age, not sanctions, caused Raul Castro to leave Cuban leadership.

    Meanwhile, how many Venezuelans, Russians, North Koreans, and Cubans have died because US companies couldn’t introduce life-saving drugs or other technologies into their countries due to sanctions? How many people have starved due to lack of food? How many small businesses have shut down because they didn’t have access to capital?

    No one discusses this because it’s more politically convenient to just slap on the sanctions. It gives off the impression that politicians are “doing something” without actually having to go to war. No one wants a nuclear bomb going off in Moscow, Washington, London, or Brussels. Warfare via sanction or even cyberwarfare remain the so-called safest ways to battle enemies. They’re certainly the least risky from a political standpoint.

    Yet the best real solution remains diplomatic engagement on meaningful topics. It’s also the hardest and riskiest option because there’s always the chance that talks fail to produce anything. That leaves elected officials at risk of being voted out by their citizens when another candidate comes along promising to be tougher. Until then, it’s sanctions warfare.

  • The troika of absurdity

    The troika of absurdity

    In a speech richly deserving adaption as a Saturday Night Live skit, US national security adviser John Bolton has unveiled the latest extension of America’s enemies list. Eclipsing the post-9/11 ‘Axis of Evil we now have a ‘Troika of Tyranny, consisting of those powerhouse troublemakers Cuba, Venezuela, and Nicaragua. According to Bolton, ‘this triangle of terror stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua is the cause of immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability, and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western Hemisphere.

    But fear not. Under the leadership of President Trump, the United States is now ‘taking direct action against all three regimes to defend the rule of law, liberty, and basic human decency in our region. The phrase ‘direct action may conjure up images of US forces mounting major military interventions sure to incorporate some reference to freedom in any codename the Pentagon might select. Operation Cuba Libre, perhaps. Or Operation Nicaraguan Freedom and Democracy or Operation Enduring Venezuelan Liberty. You get the idea.

    But, no, it appears that in practice ‘direct action translates into putting the screws to societies that are already having a tough time of it, to put it mildly. Bolton stated Washington’s demands in the form of an ultimatum: The three governments will either comply or ‘feel the full weight of America’s robust sanctions regime.

    There are two points to be made about Bolton’s initiative. First, it arrives drenched in hypocrisy. The United States has never cared a fig about whether Cubans, Nicaraguans, and Venezuelans enjoyed the rule of law, liberty, and basic human decency. The history of US relations with those nations has alternated between naked exploitation and complete disregard. Second, whatever form any coming US sanctions may actually take, you can count on one thing: It won’t be Cuban, Nicaraguan, and Venezuelan elites who suffer. It will be ordinary people.

    Only one possible explanation exists for the breathtaking cynicism implicit in Bolton’s speech: domestic politics.

    As a venue for unveiling this shift in policy, the national security adviser chose Miami just days before the midterm elections. All the smart political minds say that Florida is critical, not only to Republican prospects of keeping control of the Congress, but also to Trump’s own hopes of winning reelection in 2020. What better way to contribute to that cause than to genuflect before Miami’s large Latin community and play to ancient prejudices, to include redbaiting: ‘sordid cradle of communism, indeed.

    Even before being appointed to his current job, Bolton had acquired a well-deserved reputation as a political hack. He has now affirmed that reputation in spades. Targeting the ‘triangle of terror might strike a chord with right wing Floridians. But when it comes to advancing the cause of national security or of human decency, its benefits will be nil.

    Andrew Bacevich’s new book is Twilight of the American Century, just out from the University of Notre Dame Press.

  • Will Trump invade Latin America?

    Will Trump invade Latin America?

    So, John Bolton’s ‘troika of terror’ — Venezuela, Nicaragua, and Cuba — is the new ‘axis of evil’. Bolton’s belligerence will out, as we Brits used to say, and, with his Iran strategy somewhat stymied in recent weeks, the National Security Council Advisor’s hawk eyes must look for fresh places to menace.

    America will not tolerate these ‘dictators and despots’, he said. ‘These tyrants fancy themselves strongmen and revolutionaries, icons and luminaries. In reality, they are clownish pitiful figures more akin to Larry, Curly and Moe,’ he said. ‘The three stooges of socialism are true believers, but they worship a false God.’

    The Trump administration is therefore ramping up sanctions. But will that work? Sanctions rarely do. And if sanctions fail, then what?  A military strike is not necessarily out the question; certainly not in Bolton’s mind.

    Doubling down, and perhaps more with Iran in mind, the President tweeted a spoof Game of Thrones picture of himself saying ‘sanctions are coming’. That is a hilarious way to talk about imposing measures which will, we can be sure, end up hurting the poorest Venezuelans, Nicaraguans, Cubans and Iranians. But the lollification of American grand strategy does not stop it being destructive, even bellicose.

    The Trump administration has avoided starting a war so far, mercifully. He has not yet come unstuck in the Middle East, as his predecessors did. But Trump has already made noises about a military intervention in Venezuela. Bolton wanted to take action against Cuba for developing biological weapons.

    In many ways Latin America is a far more natural target for Trumpian aggression than Iran, say, or North Korea. It is closer to US national interests, and therefore compatible with an ‘America First’ policy.

    Trump’s pre-occupation with the immigration issue makes military action south of the border more likely, too. The failing states of Venezuela and Nicaragua pose a threat to American borders, through immigration, as President Trump never fails to point out. Could we see John Bolton soon making the case for enforced regime change in Venezuela? Or Cuba?

    In fact, Trump is already militarizing the border with Mexico. His strategic focus is more Latin-orientated than any president since Reagan. Moreover, he now has powerful regional allies especially in Brazil’s new president-elect, Jair Bolsonaro, and Columbia’s Ivan Duque, who are determined to talk tough against Venezuela. Could we see a new ‘coalition of the willing’ forming in the next two years of the Trump presidency?