The ‘ Absolution” of the Empire, the “Conversion” of Cuba and the “Opium” of the People

The sudden changes and reinvention in politics is a reality that surprises, and even more in international politics. It is that, as someone once said, nations have only interests and not friends or eternal enemies. It is surprising for these swings – these flip-flops of history – so unexpected that it makes those look bad who believe in their undisputed dogmas; those who still live in the sky of their ideological bias.

At this time, nobody will doubt the “holy” resentment of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro against the perfidy of those who are betraying the revolution. Moreover, the unhidden joy, for the help received from Pope Francis, given to President Obama, is quite evident. But facts are facts.  And what has happened is unprecedented  in the history of Latin America for the last forty years. The Cuban embargo imposed by the “Empire” has ended, and the embassies’ doors of both countries opened for business.

Now, both countries are willing to begin relations of all kinds, especially on trade and economic development. This future partnership will go against what the ideological “purists” would have believed possible. What happened? The hated capitalism, with its chambers of commerce, has “absolved” – politically speaking for the present time – the Cuban regime.  This absolution, in turn, seems to be on a course for a Cuban conversion, if not of the heart, of its diminished finances. The price of the absolution  and the conversion could not be less vital: freedom of reciprocal prisoners. Furthermore, an underlying belief may exist  – an implicit one – that there is a desire of implementing a full range of liberties, which would be universal, though how to apply them is still a question of dispute.

This series of events follows historical stages that come as no surprise. The first step was the absolution of the Empire. We must take into account that the United States is a republic, certainly, but a commercial republic. This republican ideal, a political regime of freedoms that guarantees certain contents to those freedoms, is determined to economic freedom and economic prosperity. And this economic prosperity is nourished by commercial activity that in itself is an expression of freedom.  The latter cannot exist without the former. It is the commercial spirit of the republic that John Adams so adamantly cherished. This republican ideal  is what  Jefferson also  emphasized:  the nature of the commercial ethos of the polis, of the Republic.

But there is something more. This regime of  freedoms cannot prosper isolated. It needs trade partners; the belief is apparent, for the desire for trading, civil and political liberties would follow. So, the need for an absolution of Cuban past sins was a logical step. Secondly, for the Cuban regime the agreement means a conversion, a new version and a radical change of a long-term paradigm of orthodox Marxism. Why do I say it? For the political inability  of the Cuban system,  a truly “artificial” Republic (republic in name only as Cuba is), to enhance liberties. The advent of a commercial flow and investments will, eventually, enrich its citizens who, sooner or later, will ask for political participation. That change entails a real conversion. A totalitarian regime can be supported by friends’ subsidies (hence the annoyance of Venezuelan President Nicolas  Maduro).  But, it cannot resist the flux of goods and services and, for that reason, the money earned by its citizens whose political participation they will demand, will open the regime. History tells us this will happen when a system highly structured by an official ideology, like Castro Cuba, has no more mortal enemies.  And, if that is the case, the government needs to reinvent itself, and that reinvention, hopefully, will be of a real liberal and open democracy.

But what was the role played by the Church? Wasn’t she once accused of promoting the “opium of the people?”

I am referring to the intervention of the Catholic Church through the diplomatic services of the Vatican in the negotiation. This mediation is what Obama told everyone: the intervention of Pope Francisco who was the key figure in reaching a settlement. The reasons of the Argentinean Pope for his  participation would be an expected one: to provide a space of freedom to reach an agreement where freedoms and dialogue are guaranteed. In this context, the authority of Pope Francis and the Catholic Church is no longer seen negatively. For the liberal, secularist Obama and the Marxist reformist Raúl, the Church is no longer seen as the opium for the masses. It is no longer an institution that drugs and lulls the masses, but rather an instrument of dialogue, and consensus.

Not everyone is pleased. The pain of Cuban exiles is a burning reality. Many of them feel that their struggles for freedom have been betrayed. Stories of their pain and injustices cannot be forgotten overnight. Nothing of it is trivial, but also it is true that an agreement of this nature is morally minimal. It is filled with moral and political  dilemmas, especially regarding human rights. But a bad deal is better than no agreement or the status quo for the present time. It is not enough to be pious and just to be a good politician as Maritain would say. And Francis, who may enjoy that piety and goodness, also is – I believe – an excellent politician.

Let’s summarize. The trick is not a vice, but a legitimate instrument of political intelligence. An excessive moralism which denies political reality is as harmful as a political relativism where anything goes. The tolerance of some existing evil, if this does not accompany  complacency or complicity, can be necessary to avoid a significant evil. We should recover this capacity that had President Kennedy to catch the signs of history. Kennedy, the chief executive who initiated the blockade and the Cuban embargo,  warned us  about a fundamental, prudential, truth. That is: the peace of the world does not demand that every man loves his neighbor but only that both live together in mutual tolerance. The rest, if God allows it, will be added.

Mario Ramos Reyes