Multi-party elections bad. In Cuba.
As we all know, there is no shortage of otherwise intelligent and socially aware people in Western democracies who somehow continue to have a soft spot for Fidel Castro and his nasty, little regime.
Take Seamus Milne, a columnist and associate editor with the left-leaning British daily, The Guardian.
Mr Milne has just written a review of Ignacio Ramonet’s authorised “biography” of Castro, which is published in the UK under the title “My Life”. A steal at just 25 Pounds, by the way.
The reviewer gives the book a pretty good wrap, describing it as a terrific reference source.
“For some, Cuba's resistance to multi-party elections, its clampdown on those who work with the US against the regime, its shortages and bureaucracy mark Castro down as a failed dictator, even if the only prisoners tortured and held without trial on the island are in the US base at Guantánamo,” Mr Milne writes.
“But for millions across the world, Cuba's resistance to US domination, its internationalist record in Africa and Latin America, its achievements in health and education and its pursuit of an independent, anti-capitalist course remain an inspirational point of reference.”
Get it? Multi-party elections are good. In Britain. Or Pakistan, perhaps. But in Cuba, they are bad. A luxury. Who needs multi-party elections when you are busy attacking capitalism?
As for those who risk their lives working against an oppressive regime ... In Burma, say, they are regarded as honourable and courageous dissidents, which they are. In Cuba, however, they are nothing but US-backed mercenaries.
You can read the review here.
Take Seamus Milne, a columnist and associate editor with the left-leaning British daily, The Guardian.
Mr Milne has just written a review of Ignacio Ramonet’s authorised “biography” of Castro, which is published in the UK under the title “My Life”. A steal at just 25 Pounds, by the way.
The reviewer gives the book a pretty good wrap, describing it as a terrific reference source.
“For some, Cuba's resistance to multi-party elections, its clampdown on those who work with the US against the regime, its shortages and bureaucracy mark Castro down as a failed dictator, even if the only prisoners tortured and held without trial on the island are in the US base at Guantánamo,” Mr Milne writes.
“But for millions across the world, Cuba's resistance to US domination, its internationalist record in Africa and Latin America, its achievements in health and education and its pursuit of an independent, anti-capitalist course remain an inspirational point of reference.”
Get it? Multi-party elections are good. In Britain. Or Pakistan, perhaps. But in Cuba, they are bad. A luxury. Who needs multi-party elections when you are busy attacking capitalism?
As for those who risk their lives working against an oppressive regime ... In Burma, say, they are regarded as honourable and courageous dissidents, which they are. In Cuba, however, they are nothing but US-backed mercenaries.
You can read the review here.
posted by Luis M Garcia at 3:03 pm
2 Comments:
It is unbelievable how many people are willing to overlook what can only be called atrocities, just because of political ideology.
If black activists in apartheid-era South Africa had received financial or material assistance from American blacks, would their anti-government activities EVER have been questioned as somehow tainted or illegitimate by ANYBODY in the democratic world? NO.
Unfortunately, different standards are clearly used depending on the perception of left versus right. This is quite hypocritical, but it's so entrenched and commonplace that it's barely noticed, let alone challenged. It may be "OK," but it's no less shameful for that.
Post a Comment
<< Home