Cuba under Fulgencio Batista was known as the whorehouse of the Carribean. Batista’s regime was supported by people who had gained wealth and power through Batista’s patronage. Havana was colonized by the American mafia. Castro’s victory was the result of governmental corruption, not Castro’s military genius. Castro inherited a bankrupt country with few natural resources. To solidify his regime he expropriated and redistributed plantation lands and nationalized industries. Our response was typical of our dealings with populist governments that threaten our propertied interests, a policy of undeclared economic warfare and military intervention through surrogates

Cuba grows cane sugar, which can be converted into rum, molasses or ethanol and tobacco. We provided subsidies to our sugar and tobacco growers and forbade the import of Cuban products. When our economic warfare forced Castro into accepting Russian subsidies, we had the CIA launch the Bay of Pigs invasion, keeping our involvement as deniable as possible. This kind of subversion is our normal way of dealing with populist movements. In the Cuban case, the policy was poorly handled and resulted in the Cuban Missile Crisis.

In spite of our enmity the Castro regime has raised the educational level and improved the health of the Cuban people. To what extent are Castro’s errors overreactions to our policies? How might his behavior had been different if we had purchased Cuban sugar and cigars? Would there be as many political prisoners in Cuba if we had not fostered the dreams of Refugee Cubans in Florida? Would he have embraced the Russians?

Will we stop letting business interests control our foreign policy? Will we stop protecting our farmers and allow the importation of foreign ethanol and Cuban products? Will we become free marketeers and good neighbors?

John Gibson

Blooming Prairie