The Strange Syndrome of the ‘Superficial Benevolent Charm’

Published in El Diario Exterior
(Spain) on 11 February 2015
by Carlos Alberto Montaner (link to originallink to original)
Translated from by Tristan Foy. Edited by Kyrstie Lane.
The Cuban battle has moved to the press. It has to do with a counter charge. It responds, without saying so, to a document featured in the New York Times that expressed a contrary sentiment.

A group of 40 prominent American and Cuban-American personalities, very prestigious and with a long tradition of public service or of relevance in the business sector, linked in some way with Cuba's fate, will publish a lucid article in the Washington Post. I have read it and it is very persuasive.

The signers are opposed to Barack Obama's new Cuban policy. They feel it is a dangerous error to make concessions to the dictatorship without Raúl Castro taking steps toward openness and democracy.

They are advocates of what is dictating the law of the nation, the Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act of 1996 and of what supposedly Obama himself was defending up until the eve of last Dec. 17, when he announced the changes.

Obama spent 18 months plotting in secret. What has driven the president, with the enthusiastic collaboration of his adviser John Kerry, to mislead the locals and foreigners to modify policy toward Cuba and make peace with the dictatorship?

In the United States, there are at least five types of people who are opposed to the embargo or to prohibiting Americans from visiting the neighboring island.

1. The people convinced that, after more than half a century, the policy of hostility has failed and it is preferable to turn over a new leaf, like in Vietnam or China, and subscribe to the strategy of reaching out. In other words, declare peace and forget the past.

2. Exporters and businesspeople that see a small and poor – but potentially interesting – market in Cuba.

3. The libertarians who feel, based on their principles, that no government may interfere with the freedom of Americans to travel where they will and do business with whomever they want.

4. Pro-communist sympathizers – few, but very active – present in publications like The Nation or in numerous universities, generally anti-U.S. government.

5. The victims of the very pervasive phenomenon of the "superficial benevolent charm."

The latter, without being communists, view the Cuban Revolution with a vague and skin-deep congeniality, suggested by powerful imprinting which left that episode in half the planet’s memory ever since 1959.

They are "fascinating," those young bearded men who defeated the army of the dictator Batista, directed by a singular character, who spoke for eight consecutive hours at the United Nations, openly confronted Washington, and they were determined to build a more just world among the shadows of a society peopled with prostitutes and ruled by gangsters.

They are sympathetic toward the figurehead of Che Guevara, choosing the image of the rebel that gives his life for a cause, forgetting that the cause was to create collectivist dictatorships without the least bit of space for freedoms, and ignoring the monstrous dimension of a person who was capable of declaring that a good revolutionary should be a relentless killing machine, or that he confessed to his wife that he was in the Cuban jungle "thirsty for blood."

In this last category, the "superficial benevolent charm," as I see it, is sustained on a romantic interpretation, misleading and foolish about Cuban reality, but very entrenched, encompassing people like Obama and Kerry. They are not communists, and would not wish for their country a system such as that under which the Cubans suffer, but they regard the Castros and the Revolution with a benevolent and superficial charm.

I have seen many people affected by "SBC syndrome." Perhaps Manuel Fraga Iribarne, the conservative Spanish politician, suffered from it. He was deeply anti-communist, but he felt a vague attraction to Fidel. He seemed to him to be a fearless Galician that challenged the Yankees.

At the start of the 1990s, President Carlos Salinas de Gortari summoned Felipe González, César Gaviria and Carlos Andrés Pérez – all then-presiding leaders in their respective countries – from out of the Caribbean to a Mexican island for a discreet meeting with Fidel Castro.

The USSR had just disappeared and with that cataclysm the island's support vanished. The purpose of the small and relaxed conclave – probably spurred by González – was to try to help the Cuban dictator negotiate the difficulties and facilitate the transition to another way of organizing Cuban society.

Fidel was an ideological enemy to neoliberal Salinas, privatizer and close to the United States. He was an ally to the Spanish ETA, which González confronted with firepower. He was an accomplice of the Colombian narco-guerrillas whom Gaviria attempted to crush. And he never distanced himself from the anti-democratic Venezuelan conspirators, as he showed when Chávez appeared on the horizon. But when the four heads of state met with Castro they wanted to save him. Superficial benevolent charm ruled them. They had lost their faculty of understanding who their objective enemies were. A very grave limitation.

Many years later, in exile in Miami, brought about by persecution by Hugo Chávez, Carlos Andrés Pérez confessed to me that he had been so naive that he came to think that Fidel Castro was his friend. There was deep disillusionment in his words. He told me, in credit of his innocence, that at his second inauguration in 1989, a thousand distinguished Venezuelans had signed a card welcoming the presence of Castro to Caracas. Nearly everyone there today is in the opposition or in exile. They suffered, knowing it, from SBC.

Do Obama and Kerry suffer from the same evil? I suspect so, although there is nothing more opaque and contradictory than their motivations. In any case, it appears that SBC remains until death for many of the afflicted. Only those who collide with reality are cured.


El extraño síndrome de la "benevolente simpatía superficial"El extraño síndrome de la "benevolente simpatía superficial"

La batalla cubana se ha trasladado a la prensa. Se trata de una contracarta. Responde, sin decirlo, a un documento aparecido en el NYT en sentido contrario.

Un grupo de 40 prominentes personajes norteamericanos y cubanoamericanos, muy prestigiosos y con una larga tradición de servicio público o de relevancia en el mundo empresarial, de alguna forma vinculados al destino de Cuba, publicará una lúcida página en el Washington Post. La he leído y es muy persuasiva.

Los firmantes se oponen a la nueva política cubana de Barack Obama. Les parece un peligroso error hacerle concesiones a la dictadura sin que Raúl Castro dé pasos hacia la apertura y la democracia.

Son partidarios de lo que dicta la ley de la nación, “The Cuban Liberty and Democratic Solidarity Act” de 1996, y de lo que supuestamente defendía el propio Obama hasta la víspera del 17 de diciembre pasado, cuando anunció los cambios.

Obama llevaba 18 meses conversando en secreto. ¿Qué ha conducido al presidente, con la entusiasta colaboración de su canciller John Kerry, a engañar a propios y extraños con tal de modificar la política cubana y hacer las paces con la dictadura?

En Estados Unidos hay por lo menos cinco categorías de personas que se oponen al embargo o la prohibición a los ciudadanos norteamericanos de visitar la isla vecina.

1. Las personas convencidas de que, tras más de medio siglo, la política de hostilidad ha fracasado y es preferible pasar la página, como en Vietnam o China, y suscribir la estrategia del acercamiento. O sea, declarar la paz y olvidar el pasado.
2. Los exportadores y negociantes que ven en Cuba un mercado pequeño y pobre, pero potencialmente interesante.
3. Los libertarios que piensan, basados en sus principios, que ningún gobierno debe interferir en la libertad de los norteamericanos para viajar a donde deseen y hacer negocios con quienes quieran.
4. Los simpatizantes procomunistas –pocos, pero muy activos—presentes en publicaciones como The Nation o en numerosas universidades, generalmente antigobierno norteamericano.
5. Las víctimas del muy extendido fenómeno de la “Benevolente Simpatía Superficial” (BSS).

Estos últimos, sin ser comunistas, ven a la revolución cubana con una vaga y epidérmica simpatía, surgida del poderoso imprinting que dejó ese episodio en la memoria de medio planeta desde 1959.

Les resultan “fascinantes” aquellos jóvenes barbudos que derrotaron al ejército del dictador Batista, dirigidos por un personaje singularísimo, que hablaba ocho horas consecutivas en Naciones Unidas, se enfrentaba paladinamente a Washington, y estaba decidido a construir un mundo más justo entre los escombros de una sociedad poblada de prostitutas y dominada por los gángsters.

Ven con simpatía la figura del Che Guevara, eligiendo la imagen del rebelde que da su vida por una causa, olvidando que esa causa era crear dictaduras colectivistas sin el menor espacio para las libertades, e ignorando la monstruosa dimensión de una persona que era capaz de declarar que un buen revolucionario debía ser una implacable máquina de matar, o que le confesaba a su mujer que estaba en la selva cubana “sediento de sangre”.

En esta última categoría, la de la “benevolente simpatía superficial”, a mi juicio, sustentada en una lectura romántica, falaz y tonta de la realidad cubana, pero muy arraigada, se inscriben personas como Obama y Kerry. No son comunistas, y no desearían para su país un sistema como el que padecen los cubanos, pero observan a los Castro y a la revolución con una benevolente y superficial simpatía.

He visto a muchas personas afectadas por el síndrome de la BSS. Tal vez Manuel Fraga Iribarne, el político conservador español, lo padecía. Era visceralmente anticomunista, pero sentía una difusa atracción por Fidel. Le parecía un gallego valiente que le había plantado cara a los yanquis.

A principios de los años noventa, el presidente Carlos Salinas de Gortari convocó a una isla mexicana del Caribe a Felipe González, a César Gaviria y a Carlos Andrés Pérez –todos entonces gobernantes en sus respectivos países—a una discreta reunión con Fidel Castro.

La URSS acababa de desaparecer y con ese cataclismo se había esfumado el subsidio a la Isla. El propósito del pequeño y distendido cónclave –probablemente alentado por González-- era tratar de ayudar al dictador cubano a sortear las dificultades y facilitarle el tránsito hacia otro modo de organizar la sociedad cubana.

Fidel era un enemigo ideológico del neoliberal Salinas, privatizador y cercano a Estados Unidos. Era un aliado de la ETA española a la que González se había enfrentado a tiros. Era un cómplice de las narcoguerrillas colombianas a las que Gaviria intentaba derrotar. Y nunca se había alejado de los conspiradores antidemocráticos venezolanos, como se demostró cuando Chávez apareció en el horizonte. Pero los cuatro estadistas reunidos con Castro querían salvarlo. Los dominaba la Benevolente Simpatía Superficial. Habían perdido la facultad de entender quiénes eran sus enemigos objetivos. Gravísima limitación.

Muchos años más tarde, en su exilio miamense, provocado por la persecución de Hugo Chávez, Carlos Andrés Pérez me confesó que había sido tan ingenuo que llegó a pensar que Fidel Castro era su amigo. En sus palabras había un profundo desengaño. Me dijo, en abono de su inocencia, que cuando su segunda toma de posesión, en 1989, un millar de venezolanos ilustres habían firmado una carta saludando la presencia de Castro en Caracas. Casi todos estaban hoy en la oposición o en el exilio. Sufrían, sin saberlo, de BSS.

¿Padecen Obama y Kerry del mismo mal? Sospecho que sí, aunque no hay nada más opaco y contradictorio que las motivaciones. En todo caso, parece que la BSS acompaña hasta la muerte a muchos enfermos. Sólo se curan los que chocan con la realidad.
This post appeared on the front page as a direct link to the original article with the above link .

Hot this week

Singapore: Iranian Response in Qatar Was Specifically Targeted at Washington – ‘We Are Done’

Germany: Resistance to Trump’s Violence Is Justified

Pakistan: After Me, the Deluge

India: US, Israel and the Age of Moral Paralysis

India: What if Trump Has Just Started Another ‘Forever War’?

Topics

Canada: Trump Did What Had To Be Done

Japan: Reckless Government Usage of Military To Suppress Protests

Mexico: The Military, Migrants and More

Australia: NATO Aims To Flatter, but Trump Remains Unpredictable

Germany: Can Donald Trump Be Convinced To Remain Engaged in Europe?

Ireland: The Irish Times View on Iran and Israel: a Fragile Cease-fire

India: US, Israel and the Age of Moral Paralysis

Related Articles

Sri Lanka: Pakistan’s Nobel Prize Nominee and War in Middle East

Pakistan: After Me, the Deluge

Russia: Will the US Intervene in an Iran-Israel Conflict? Political Analyst Weighs the Odds*

Cuba: Summit between Wars and Other Disruptions

Israel: Israel Sets Its Sights on Trump, and the Iranian Nuclear Facility Is Not the Only Reason