Castroika THE PHOTOGRAPH SHOWS FIDEL CASTRO’S face just above the tweed shoulder of the man he is embracing; his beard hangs down the back of the man’s coat. The man’s face is not visible, but the caption assures us it is Nicanor Costa M6ndez, Argentina’s for- eign minister. The year was 1982 and Fidel had just offered the military junta Cuba’s unconditional support in the Malvinas war. Last December, another photo: This time Fidel is talking animatedly with Honduran president Jos6 Azcona in the balcony of Mexico’s Legislative Palace. A pale listless Jos6 Napole6n Duarte looks on. Below, Carlos Salinas de Gortari is being sworn in as president. The photo fails to capture the signs of protest, or the empty seats left by the opposition congressmen who had al- ready walked out on the inauguration of the man they maintain was elected by fraud. T HE DEBATE OVER ALLIANCES HAS BEEN long and angry on the Latin American Left. Should the Left obey the dictates of pragmatism? Or does prin- ciple proscribe allying with the enemy of a friend? For 30 years, Fidel Castro has been the lightning rod around which such questions are defined. In 1982, he regarded the Argentine generals, who had brutally crushed the Left and sought to regain legitimacy through a patriotic quest in the Malvinas, as proper allies. Fidel was ada- mant: Latin American unity against British imperialism far outweighed any distaste for fascism. In December, his explanation was similar: “It was my duty to visit Mexico,” he maintained, “and it would have been politi- cal cowardice not to have done so. How can we have the moral valor to call for unity if we do not go where we are invited?” Salinas’ intent was transparent. By inviting Fidel and seven other Latin American heads of state, including Daniel Ortega–thereby breaking a half-century tradition of Mexicans-only ceremonies–Salinas sought to gain internationally the respectability he could not achieve at home. (Progressive foreign policy to cover regressive domestic policy is another time-honored tradition of the Mexican revolution.) A few weeks after the inauguration, Cuauht6moc CArdenas, the Left candidate who many believe won last July’s election, was in New York. He was still angry. “They [Castro and Ortega] had their reasons for going,” he said bitterly, “but they will pay a price.” In the letters columns of Mexico’s opposition press, high regard for the hero of the Cuban revolution had turned to resigned disappointment. Fidel insisted that one should not confuse strategy with tactics. Presumably the strategy he preferred was to encourage Mexico’s progressive foreign policy on con- tinent-wide issues: “I came to Mexico to achieve a greater unity among our countries in the search for solu- tions to the dramatic problems Latin American people suffer today.” The tactic he eschewed was to stand by Cuauht6moc Cdrdenas, who champions a progressive stance on both foreign and domestic issues. A tactic or a strategy? Perhaps Fidel was swayed by Cdrdenas’ re- fusal to capture the moment by calling his supporters into the street. A cautious politician, aware of his rela- tive weakness, Cirdenas chose to stick to electoral struggle, building for the next vote six years hence. C ASTROIKA IS THE NICKNAME THE LATIN American press has given to Fidel’s spirited de- fense of the traditional road to socialism, a not-so-veiled critique of Gorbachev. The Cuban leader’s trip to Mex- ico was perhaps indicative of castroika’s reach. Not only did Fidel bless the Salinas regime, but he met at length with the captains of Mexican industry. At a private three- hour gala affair designed to encourage Mexican invest- ment in Cuba, he so impressed the millionaires that one of them, Antonio Madero Bracho, ended the party with heartfelt praise: “If you were in Mexico, you’d be a great businessman. You’ve got the talent for it.” Fidel’s reply: “Chico, I am a businessman, but of the state!” NE CAN CERTAINLY SYMPATHIZE WITH Cuba’s need to break its isolation and with Fidel’s desire to enlist Mexico’s support in assaulting the debt crisis. But suppose it had been Jesse Jackson who won the presidency and was deprived of office by massive and obvious fraud. Suppose hundreds of thousands of outraged citizens descended on Washington to demand new elections. And suppose a shrewd George Bush, aware of the groundswell of Left sentiment among the electorate, invited Fidel Castro to his inauguration. Would we praise the opening to Cuba? Or would we lament Fidel’s decision to trade off support for real change in order to further his perception of a broader interest? Fidel was correct when he said, “I am obliged to support a government which has supported us for 30 years.” Mexico was the only Latin American country that refused to break relations with revolutionary Cuba. But where does that leave the Left? Perhaps the issue is not so much with whom the Left should ally in the struggle for socialism. Rather, the sad fact that revolu- tionary governments have more in common with other governments, than with other revolutionaries. And that the pragmatism of some will always dictate that the Left remain divided.
Menu
