Navajo Nation talk business without Fidel

[struggle4progress]

By Marc Frank
Reuters
Wednesday, August 23, 2006; 1:25 PM

HAVANA (Reuters) - The highest-level U.S. delegation to visit Cuba since Fidel Castro handed over power left the island on Wednesday with a historic deal on trade between the communist country and a Navajo agribusiness but no message for Washington.

New Mexico Rep. Tom Udall, a Democrat, said his delegation had met neither the ailing Cuban leader nor acting President Raul Castro, Fidel Castro's younger brother ...

Udall's group will be going home with a contract for the Navajo Nation to sell farm products grown by its Navajo Agricultural Products Industry, which cultivates some 68,000 acres in New Mexico.

"We signed a letter of intent between the Navajo Nation and Cuba to sell beans, corn, wheat and other products," Gonzalez said ... http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/08/23/AR2006082301084.html

[Mika]

1. But I thought that the Castros controlled everything in Cuba.

Who's going to set the bus schedules and garbage pick ups w/out Fidel?


:sarcasm:

[Khayembii Communique]

2. Cuba is no dictatorship

Fidel is the Prime Minister, and he was also the President. Since he has stepped down for the operation, the presidency goes to the next-in-line - the vice president. That's Raul. Both were democratically elected by the National Assembly, who were directly nominated and elected by the people.

[1932]

3. In Peter Eisner's book about Manuel Noriega

Noriega tells a story about visiting Cuba and telling Castro that he liked the paintings on the wall of a room in which they were having a reception for him. Castro told him to pick one to take back to Nicaragua. A low-level government official told Castro that he couldn't do that because the paintings belonged to the Cuban people. Castro told Noriega that they would get him another painting. Noriega said that the impression he got was that Castro clearly wasn't a dictator.

[Judi Lynn]

5. Seems like a quiet, small observation, yet it's very LARGE.

It totally contradicts the propaganda we get thrown in our faces.

Just last week, almost as if in passing, it was Mika, I believe, who mentioned to a poster that Fidel Castro had actually been completely opposed to accepting the use of the American dollar, and he was overruled by the Cuban National Assembly.

I had heard from other sources, as well, that Fidel Castro has had projects in the past he wanted to see implemented and they were voted down.

The Noriega incident is very revealing. (You must read like the wind: you've been through TONS of books while posting here.)

[Barrett808]

6. Noriega == Panama

Just a minor quibble.

[lumpy]

8. Was it Daniel Ortega (Nicaragua)

who visited Castro instead of Noreiga? Now I'm curious.

[Barrett808]

9. Maybe -- I haven't heard this (very interesting) story before. n/t

[lumpy]

10. Looked it up, yes it was

Daniel Ortega who visited Castro. Vast difference from Noreiga, the ex-CIA patsy who made a career of playing thug for fame and fortune. Backfired.

[Barrett808]

11. Great, thanks for the investigation. n/t

[1932]

15. This story was from Noriega in Peter Eisner's book:

"The Memoirs of Manuel Noriega: America's Prisoner"

It's a great read.

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0679432272/002-7593254-8792836?v=glance&n=283155

[1932]

14. Oops. Yes. Panama.

[happyslug]

7. True Dictators are rare in history.

Stalin and Hitler were the closest thing to true Dictators in the last 100 years. All power came from them. Most Dictators are first among equals with various people up and down the governmental hierarchy having power. The Dictator is just the linch-pin for the whole governing system, who can be replaced by anyone else in the ruling Junta. The Kings and Queens of old ruled this way, they inherited the right to be King or Queen but their Power to rule absolutely was restricted by they need to rule through people who also had power within the Government.

Now Castro is interesting, he seems to have all of the power of a true Dictator. He dresses "down" and keeps his title to a minimum like a true Dictator (Dictators whose powers are on the decline tend to go with all the trapping of powers, i.e. rich robes, crowns and titles like "Your Majesty" etc). Thus you have Hitler going around dressed well, but no decorations other than the medals he won in WWII, while his underlings were going for fancy uniforms and all types of Medals. The same with Stalin, he dressed like an Russian Officer, well but simple, compared to Brezhnev who wore all types of medals on his business suits.

Castro holds complete power in Cuba, no one really questions that. His power base is the people of Cuba who support him overwhelmingly. Now one way Castro gives the impression he does not have that power is to appear to be just another Governmental official. Thus the story of the picture, it was the property of Cuba and as such Castro could NOT give it away, but he could have the artist paint a copy. Castro is the President of Cuba, elected by the Cuban Assembly. This is much like how Augustus ruled Rome, after Augustus defeated Mark Anthony, Augustus gave up ALL of his power as Dictator, knowing he had complete control over the Senate so that the Senate would give him back those powers (Through Augustus was careful to retain the power of First Senator and Tribune of the People along with popus maximus, his three bases of power in Ancient Rome). Augustus worn only the Toga of First Senator while he was ruling Rome, thus dressing while but modest. It is only with the Decline of Rome that you start to see the Emperors wearing fancy robes, diadems and even crowns, basically as their power declined, they try to appear more powerful then they were (Which is typical of most dictatorships, when strong the Dictator looks like just another ruler of the Country, when weak they dress up to look more powerful, i.e. fancy clothes etc).

Thus your statements as to what Castro does and does not do mean nothing, his power base is the Cuban people and as long as he has there support he can do as he pleases.

[Zynx]

12. Exactly. Hitler and Stalin are odd cases in the realm of dictatorships

since their power was absolute. Most dictatorships are military juntas where there is a first among equals, at least in theory, like Chile under Pinochet or Spain under Franco. Almost all dictatorships have some form of elections, but choices are limited and fraud is pervasive.

[happyslug]

13. Actual theory is all power is in the Dictator.

The truth is that all power is RARELY in the Dictator. Hitler, for example controlled all, that silver-tongue orator had the people of Germany in his hands as while as the members of the SA and SS. When Hitler no longer needed the SA, he had their leader killed (and when he needed the storm-troopers of the SA in the 1920s, he tolerated the SA's leaders homosexuality). When Hitler was in Jail in the mid-1920s the Nazi almost died out, but once he was released he became their absolute leader and in 1933 the German people gave Hitler absolute power (Through it should be noted the actual vote was to give absolute Power to Hindenburg, who had had that power in the past, the late 1920s for example and with Ludendroff from 1916-till the end of WWI, thus the first vote to give Hitler absolute power was to give it to Hindenburg who could then delegate that power as Hindenburg through fit to Hitler, When Hindenburg died Hitler combined the position of Chancellor and President but never put THAT decision up to a vote).

Stalin did similar political maneuvers, building up a political base and with that base ruled the former USSR absolutely (For example Stalin famous maneuver on Trosky, Stalin send a Telegraph to Trotsky that he was quickly burying Lenin, than then delaying Lenin's funnel to give the impression Trotsky deliberately avoided Lenin's Funeral, then giving Trotsky the right to name his successor to command of the Red Army, and then making sure that successor died on the operating table, giving Stalin the right to name the commander of the Red Army).

While these two tyrants were absolute monarchs, most dictators are not. Often Juntas have less Political maneuver power than democratically elected governments (In fact the drop in Juntas ruling Latin American Countries had to do with the fact that the Juntas could NOT cut social programs without causing riots in the streets, but the people would accept such cuts from a democratically elected Government, thus most Junta's gave up power when they no longer could rule by fear and needed popular support).

This is typical of most Dictatorships, they rule by fear, with little or no popular support. Fascists dictatorships (Hitler, Mussolini, and Stalin) rule WITH POPULAR SUPPORT in addition to fear. Castro does the same, he has popular support and rules with an Iron Hand. Machiavelli's famous Question and Answer, Which is better? To rule by Fear or Love? The answer is BOTH, but if you have to chose, choose Fear. The problem with ruling by Fear is once the fear is gone, so is the Dictators ability to rule. This is unlike a Government that rules by Fear AND Love, once the fear is gone, such ruler can still rely on the love of his people to rule till the people fear someone or something else.

Thus while all power comes from the Dictator, if the Dictator is NOT loved by the people, he can be replaced by anyone else in the Ruling Junta. Thus such dictators, while on paper have absolute power, in real life rarely have anything near absolute power. The real power stays with the people and such non-loved Dictators can only stay in power as long as people fear them more than the people fear being shot. Thus during economic hard times, when things have to be cut, dictatorships fail, people no longer fear death and with that lost of fear goes the power of the Dictator. Democratic governments also falls during such economic hard times, but replaced by other democratically elected leaders. Military dictatorship only kick in when the proposed cure of economic hard times threaten the ruling elite who then support a Dictatorship to protect they interest. The problem is such dictatorship has to narrow a support base to be permanent. Thus replaced by popular supported government as economic hard time increase (AS what happened when Hitler, Mussolini and Stalin took power over in their countries, they were POPULAR supported dictatorship NOT military Dictatorship, thus had a wider base of Support).

[Zynx]

17. Mussolini did not have total control.

The fascist grand council booted his ass out. There was a system of accountability. Most dictatorships are not totalitarian like Hitler or Stalin, but rather authoritarian with a somewhat tenuous hold on power. It is difficult for a lot of dictatorships to ever establish such an iron grip on power and that's why most are relatively short lived.

[donsu]

4. smart thinking by the Navajos - wishing them well

nt

[Robbien]

16. So many countries do business with Cuba

It makes sense that there is a whole Cuban governmental structure which takes care of trade negotiations. Every other country's Head of State doesn't sit in on all negotiations with business organizations who come to do business with their countries.

This article just shows the bias the WaPo has about Cuba.