Whatever you think of Fidel Castro, who died this past week, one fact is clear: the Cuban leader had a thorny relationship with U.S. for almost 50 years. Commentator, and retired history professor, Dr. Bill Schell takes this opportunity to compare him to another Latin American strongman who took a different tack in dealing with their northern superpower neighbor.
Note: The views expressed in this commentary are solely those by the commentator and don't necessarily reflect the views of WKMS.
On My Mind: Castro and His American Contention
by Dr. Bill Schell
The death of Fidel Castro has been on my mind.
I have taught Latin American history for 30 years—25 at Murray State.
Fidel, his revolution and his relationship to the United States was the focal point of my history for the latter 20th century. For 47 years. Fidel did not just rule Cuba, he WAS Cuba—a quintessential caudillo—the strongman, the man on horseback—who consolidated his rule by defying Uncle Sam by embracing Communism and the Soviet Union when the Cold War was most glacial indeed.
In class, I paired Fidel with another great revolutionary caudillo, Porfirio Diaz. For 35 years, Porfirio did not just rule Mexico, he WAS Mexico—a quintessential caudillo—the strongman, the man on horseback—who consolidated his rule by cooperating with Uncle Sam. Porfirio understood by inviting American investment and immigration, the regime would create a lobby in Washington on the regime’s behalf, effectively inventing Dollar Diplomacy in the process.
Fidel’s defiant establishment of diplomatic and trade relations with the Soviet Union made Cuba a thorn in Uncle Sam’s side, provoking illegal actions by American presidents from Eisenhower to Reagan. President Eisenhower not only imposed a trade embargo—a legal action—he authorized covert CIA operations to overthrow Fidel that culminated in JFK’s failed Bay of Pigs invasion. Kennedy and the CIA then turned to assassination making common cause with the Mafia that also wanted Fidel gone—an alliance possible linked to Kennedy’s assassination. Seeking life insurance, Fidel allowed the Soviets to install missiles on the island provoking a crisis that brought the world as close to nuclear war as it ever came (or hopefully ever will come). In the deal ending the crisis, Washington agreed not to act against Fidel, and Fidel agreed not to back revolution in the Americas. He even refused to aid his revolutionary partner Che Guevara who was killed attempting to raise revolution in Bolivia. But Fidel’s deal with Washington left him a free hand in Africa where Cuban troops, supplied by the Soviets, helped bring communist governments to power in Mozambique and Angola. When in 1979, legal elections brought a Marxist Sandinista government to power in Nicaragua under Daniel Ortega, Fidel recognized it immediately. When Ronald Reagan defied congress by illegally funding the right-wing CONTRA movement to overthrow the Sandinistas, Fidel supplied medical teams and arms to Ortega’s government. The failed effort nearly cost Reagan his presidency in the infamous Iran-Contra Scandal. And, after an interim, Ortega was again elected president. Suffice it to say that all American efforts to bring down Fidel failed. Clad in his OD green revolutionary fatigues, the bearded caudillo defied the yankee imperialists until he died.
Compare Fidel’s experience with Porfirio’s. Porfirio sought to use American investors to manage Mexico’s relations with Uncle Sam, to negotiate the shape and extent of inevitable US hegemony. Both Porfirio and Washington wanted to develop Mexico using American investment, but their ends were antithetical: Mexico sought national strength through American-led economic development, whereas Washington sought hemispheric dominance using Mexico as its agent. By 1910, in what was known as “the Peaceful Invasion” Americans had invested over 1 billion dollars Mexico—far more than in Cuba. That said, Washington's ability to guide or shape events depended upon the degree to which its interests coincided with those of the Mexican-American business establishment, and often they did not. Ultimately, then, it may be said that the Porfirian regime got the form of hegemony it sought, and Washington took the sort of hegemony it could get. Washington wanted Porfirio to create a “Greater Mexico” by absorbing the disorderly Central American republics and serving as a hemispheric "beat cop" the Washington acting as Judge. Because Porfirio would not agree, President William Taft supported Francisco Madero’s revolution which toppled the old caudillo who went into exile in Paris as the modern Mexico he created fell to pieces in revolution.
Which caudillo—Fidel the antagonist or Porfirio the accommodator—had the most success in dealing with Uncle Sam, I leave you to judge.