US President’s historic visit to Cuba points to importance of economics

US President Barack Obama waves next to First Lady Michelle Obama as they arrive with their daughters Sasha and Malia (behind) at Jose Marti international airport in Havana on March 20, 2016 - AFP

March 23, 2016,

It is the language of the merits of economic liberalization that Obama used for a good part of his speech. On this score, the US President is well in tune with the tone and temper of our times because economic globalization is no respecter of political differences. This, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaou Ping knew as far back as the late seventies. Since then, China has become one of the foremost exponents of economic pragmatism. As should be expected, China’s foreign policy has been moulded to encompass this shift in economic policy. In this situation, political orthodoxy takes second place to practical economic need. This, Cuba too has come to realize, although there is no indication that Cuba is prepared to dilute too much her communist credential.

It was, once again, a case of economics taking precedence over politics as US President Barack Obama figured in a historic handshake with Cuban President Raul Castro in Cuba, ending decades long strained ties between the countries based on mainly Cold War ideological questions. It is clear that the US President’s current visit to Cuba is of an epochal nature. It could pave the way to bring to a close a political enmity, which, in the early sixties, figured prominently in propelling the US and USSR into a potential nuclear confrontation in the seas off Florida, which would have had disastrous consequences for the Americas and the world.

President Obama’s address to Cuba and the world was easily one of the highest points in the US President’s visit to the Caribbean island which remains one of the final bastions of communism in the world. If one needs a comprehensive overall view of the factors which pushed the Obama visit, it is to this characteristically eloquent and stirring address that one must turn. Essentially, it is economic considerations that are driving this historic thaw in US-Cuba relations and we are compelled to contemplate the unifying dimension in economic globalization, which latter is the pervasive backdrop to the most significant of current international developments. Economics are continuing to drive politics and it is virtually impossible to assess issues in international politics currently without focusing on this paradigm change in international relations.

It was abundantly clear that the Obama administration was not going to be distracted from its course in Cuba and Argentina, which Obama was to visit next, considering that the horrific terror attacks in Brussels occurred at the time of Obama’s Cuba visit. The US President condemned the attacks cogently and pledged the US’ solidarity with the people of Belgium in this the US ‘European ally’s’ time of need. He also re-affirmed the US’ commitment to fight terror and pledged to see an end to it on the basis of unity with those sections of the world which are opposed to terror.

The latter pronouncements pointed to policy consistency on the part of the West on terror-linked issues. The world’s major terror organizations, including the LTTE, remain outlawed in the US and it is difficult to see the West softening its policy stance on these outfits, considering the terrible human costs terror continues to exact. The Brussels attacks are proof that terror organizations, such as the IS, are not only unrelenting in their efforts to harm civilians but are also in an attempt to extend their reach beyond their usual areas of operation in the Middle East and adjacent regions. Clearly, EU member countries are among the potential terror targets.

Considering the above, the conscience of the writer of this column was outraged when he heard some ‘brain-dead’ Sri Lankan sections ghoulishly cry out ‘Jayawewa’ and ‘retribution’ on their learning of the terror attacks in Brussels. If they are jubilant on seeing civilians losing their lives to terror, it could be said that these sinister cheer squads are as inhuman as the terrorists, even LTTE terrorists. Such is the toll that brutal and prolonged wars exact from publics. Among other things, the incident reminded this columnist that there are very many people among the local public, some even instrumental in moulding public opinion, who are badly in need of psychiatric assistance. This is an urgent task for the relevant state institutions, including those in charge of ensuring the mental health of the public.

That said, it must be underscored that a purely military or law and order approach cannot help a great deal in containing terror anywhere. Terror arises from keenly felt group grievances and these grievances need to be addressed by political solutions which aim at eliminating these causes for discontent. That is, political solutions need to complement military ones. However, ideally, political solutions must take precedence over military approaches, mainly on account of the consideration that political solutions are sparing of human lives.

President Obama was quite expansive in his address on the numerous opportunities that would open up from now on in the areas of trade, investment and tourism, between the US and Cuba. He called on both sides to make good use of these opportunities to ensure the mutual economic well being of the countries. He was particularly emphatic about the opportunities for people-to-people contact which could be availed of and on their role in ending the decades-long strained ties between the countries. The current dissolving of barriers to economic interaction between the countries must be utilized, Obma indicated. He said in no uncertain terms that he had called upon Congress to lift the US-initiated, decades-long economic embargo on Cuba.

It is clear that the US is in an effort to bolster its economic ties with every possible country and region to enhance its status as a predominant economic power. Recently, it entered into the Trans Pacific Partnership which has the potential to accelerate the US’ economic penetration of the Asia-Pacific region. Needless to say, in taking these initiatives, it is in an attempt to upstage China. Not without urgent interest are reports that China ‘s economic concerns have now spread to even the Amazon in South America, the US’ veritable backyard.

However, it is the language of the merits of economic liberalization that Obama used for a good part of his speech. On this score, the US President is well in tune with the tone and temper of our times because economic globalization is no respecter of political differences. This, former Chinese leader Deng Xiaou Ping knew as far back as the late seventies. Since then, China has become one of the foremost exponents of economic pragmatism. As should be expected, China’s foreign policy has been moulded to encompass this shift in economic policy. In this situation, political orthodoxy takes second place to practical economic need. This, Cuba too has come to realize, although there is no indication that Cuba is prepared to dilute too much her communist credential.

In the face of these momentous developments, Sri Lanka’s ‘Old Left’ is, apparently, choosing to maintain a stony silence. An input by it on what it makes of the current crumbling of Cold War rivalries, for example, would be most welcome. Is it opposed or otherwise to these ground-breaking currents of the times?