A whore by any other name

Marco Rubio has his nuts in a vise because the President has taken the first steps to normalize relations with Cuba. Clearly, some of this is political posturing, which Rubio, like many in the Senate and House has mastered. His concerns, however, need further examination. He is all a twitter because nothing in the dialogue to this point requires "Democratic reforms" in Cuba. Apparently Mr. Rubio has forgotten (or more likely, has never reflected upon) the fact that the US has normalized relations with a number of nations, China and Viet Nam among them, with no such stipulations whatsoever.

        I suppose Senator Rubio would have us believe that the continuance of communism in Cuba threatens our representative democracy. It is interesting to note however, that there are similarities between China, Viet Nam, and Cuba. In all three cases, the US decided that they should not be allowed to have the government chosen by the majority of their people.

        In the case of China, the United States poured millions into the propping up and support of the "nationalist" government of  Chiang Kai-shek against what was an increasingly  popular movement led by Mao. The communists in China had gained popularity because of the corruption and  oligarchic nature of the existing government, not unlike other revolutions in other parts of the world throughout history. The fact that they chose communism is more reaction to corruption and belief in a system, which they believed offered better opportunities for the common folk. The fact that this was already failing in Russia was not common knowledge to the Chinese masses. So the US attempted to overthrow communists in China.

        10 or 12 years later in Viet Nam, the US provided millions in material support to help the French attempt to re-colonialize "French Indo-China" (Viet Nam). The true leader of the nation, Ho Chi-Mihn, begged President Harry Truman in a 1946 telegraph, to warn off the French, who could have done little without US aid.  Torn between burgeoning "anti-Red" sentiment at home and an upcoming election, Truman ignored it.  In the message the Vietnamese leader ask for American support of Vietnam’s independence from France. He also asked for U.S. help in making negotiations with France comply with the principles of the Atlantic and San Francisco (United Nations) Charters. Both of these "charters, called for an end to colonialism. Ho Chi Minh’s telegram was  left unanswered by Harry Truman.

        The United States did not support the Vietnamese struggle against the French. and eventually, as a result of supporting a colonial takeover attempt against a popular government, we entered into a conflict which from 1954 to 1975 caused over 2.4 million deaths, of which  about 1/5 were civilians on both sides. Dwight D. Eisenhower said, "I have never talked or corresponded with a person knowledgeable in Indochinese affairs who did not agree that had elections been held as of the time of the fighting, possibly 80 per cent of the population would have voted for the Communist Ho Chi Minh as their leader."  And yet, we poured billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lives into attempting to un seat a government which had the support of 80% of its population!

        Now, to Cuba: The United States tried to recreate Cuba in our own image following its "liberation" from Spain.  American military government gave way to an American approved and framed civil government under a bevy of Cuban politicos primarily  subservient to US trade pressures. By the 1940s the Batista family had established political primacy in Cuba.  During his first term as President, Fulgencio Batista had been supported by the Communist Party of Cuba but during his second term he became strongly anti-communist, gaining him political support and increased military aid from the United States.

         Batista developed a powerful security infrastructure to silence political opponents, leading John F. Kennedy to describe the Cuban government as a "complete police state" in 1960. In the months following the March 1952 coup, Fidel Castro, then a young lawyer and activist, petitioned for the overthrow of Batista, whom he accused of corruption and tyranny.  Castro's constitutional arguments were rejected by the Cuban courts, so after deciding that the Cuban state could not be overthrown through legal means, Castro resolved to launch an armed revolution.  ( sounds like 1776 in the US, no?) Eventually, Castro, threatened by US sanction and military proximity, drew closer to the Soviet Union and announced the Cuban government as Communist.

        Again, all the US had to hear was  "Communism" and the scene was set for the closest approach to nuclear exchange that the world has seen to date.  The instigation came from the aborted "Bay of Pigs" invasion, which was funded, sponsored and executed by the US Government and/or its agencies. In response, Soviet premier Khrushchev announced intentions to base nuclear weapons in Cuba. The standoff, generally known as the Cuban Missile Crisis was a nail biting thirteen day standoff.

        Summarizing, then, there are common factors which stand out in all three cases. First: the countries in question all rebelled against unpopular regimes in an attempt at self government.  Second: in each case, the form of government they chose was Communism. Third: in each case, the United States directly interfered in an attempt to thwart the popular revolution. Fourth, and in my estimation worst, is the fact that there is little doubt that in each case, the indigenous popular will, which American politicians are so fond of  touting as the raison d'etre for democratic ideals, was ignored by the United States. An aggravating factor was the fact that many Americans had become convinced that all communists were evil and exactly the same. Equating  Ho Chi Minh, Stalin, Castro, and Mao seems ludicrous to most students of political thought today, but the McCarthys, Dulleses and their ilk had no such discriminatory ability.    

        So here we are, having established normal relations with (still Communist) China and Viet Nam, and without sanction or provision for regime change. Marco Rubio has had nothing to say about these events, either currently or in  historical context, yet he has lambasted the current President for offering the same to Cuba.  It makes one wonder what he's really after - oh. wait, his South Florida constituency has many Cuban exiles and dissidents.

        When you sell your virtue for money, it's called prostitution; when you do it for votes, it's simply politics as usual. A whore by any other name.....!