Michel E. Torres Corona / Cuba in Brief
Several years ago, I published a short piece in the Granma newspaper titled “Theory and Discourse of the Failed State.” At the time, I wrote it prompted by the indiscriminate use of that term in relation to Cuba, under conditions that—while complicated—were much better than those of today. Now, as the noose around the island tightens even further and the blockade imposed by imperialism for decades intensifies, it is understandable (for those of us who have been involved in these struggles for some time) that identical or similar labels continue to gain popularity.
Because — and here we continue to agree with the American political scientist Susan Woodward, as we did when we published in Granma — that is precisely what it is: a “fashionable label,” a “catch-all term, too imprecise to carry out an analysis of its causes or consequences and, therefore, susceptible to being misused.”[1]
Of course, speaking of “inappropriate” use is a way of currying favor (too well) with those who wield this resounding label. Most of the time, we are faced with what the Argentine specialist in international relations, Juan Gabriel Tokatlian, explains as the “conceptual instrumentalization” of the “failed state.” From an “academic category,” it becomes an arsenal for media bombardment against certain targets based on certain interests. The clearest example is, of course, the US government, and its use of “state failure” to justify and/or legitimize its actions in the international arena.[2]
The crux of the matter points to the supposed ineptitude of a system or of a government to carry out its public functions. According to Canadian political scientist Kalevi Holsti, a failed state lacks the capacity to “provide itself with the necessary resources to govern and provide services.” In his view, and in line with the German theorist Max Weber, a failed state fails to maintain a monopoly on the legitimate use of force within its territorial boundaries.[3]
It is no wonder that the belligerent Secretary of State, Marco Rubio, insists on saying time and again that Cuba has an incompetent government that cannot — for some strange and esoteric reason! — obtain the means to have a robust economy. Nor is it surprising that the current emperor, Mr. Donald Trump, insinuates that we are a collapsed nation, in need of “assistance,” a nation that he can liberate or seize depending on his mood; or that his “Cuban-American” lackeys, like María Elvira Salazar, or the hate influencers in Miami, like Eliécer Ávila, try to sow seeds of discord on social media. The idea that the Cuban people are in the streets, that there is a situation of ungovernability, of chaos.
This is not a theoretical discussion: when Cuba is labeled a “failed state,” the aim is to justify coercive measures or, even more dangerously, to pave the way for intervention. And we cannot blame Trump and his court of buffoons exclusively: the tradition is long-standing and shared by both Republicans and Democrats.
Don’t you remember the “apathetic and venerable emperor”[4] Joe Biden when he referred to Cuba as a “failed state,” taking advantage of the pandemic and the protests and riots that took place in our country on July 11, 2021? No one mentioned then that the COVID-19 mortality rate in the United States was four times higher than in Cuba, and that demonstrations, protests, and riots were (and are) commonplace up North. On July 11, in Havana, there was no takeover of the Capitol, as there was when supporters of Donald Trump… They seized the US Congress by force after losing the elections. But we’re the ones who failed… they’re even repeating the same mistakes with Trump.
Some enthusiasts of capitalist restoration in Cuba have always served as echo chambers for the use of terms like “dictatorship,” “regime,” or, in this case, “failed state.” Others have “chosen” the softer term “failed government,” perfectly in line with Rubio’s demands, which were leaked to the world by The New York Times: if a “negotiated solution” was desired, there had to be a change of government in our country. The problem, in essence, is the same, apart from the rearrangement of certain words.
Placing the blame for the current deterioration of the Cuban people’s living conditions on the Díaz-Canel government is an act of unparalleled depravity. To speak now, when global solidarity is outraged by Trump’s new “reconcentration” of “too many mistakes” on the part of the Cuban authorities, To denounce the incompetence of its officials, to call out “communication blunders” or cases of corruption (which have been publicly prosecuted) in order to undermine its administration, is an act of injustice and utter political ineptitude… assuming good faith, of course.
The fair, the appropriate, the most sensitive and timely thing to do would be to understand that, when most analysts gave us only days to live, if that, here we are still here, and if the Cuban government (or the State) were truly failed, so incompetent and corrupt, the outcome of the US siege would be different. It’s an old paradox, this supposed “internal blockade,” which attempts to equate the Communist Party’s malpractices with the most brutal and prolonged siege in modern history, without highlighting that it is the practice of Cuban socialism — undoubtedly imperfect — that has allowed the country to survive in an asymmetrical scenario, facing an adversary disproportionately superior in economic and military terms.
Recently, the Spanish politician Gabriel Rufián spoke in the Spanish Parliament about Cuba, and about the example that the Empire wanted to destroy. And this coincides with the words of the great Cuban intellectual Aurelio Alonso, which we also quoted years ago when we were writing in the Granma newspaper:
“It is a failed state, given all that misery, all that abuse of power exercised by the empire. For them, Cuba, the Cuban example, is the example of a failed state, when in reality, the failed state for the world, for humanity’s chances of survival, is precisely the one they are advocating.”[5]
In any case, the failure has been that of the U.S. government, of the imperialist state. This is confirmed by the recent interview given by Miguel Díaz-Canel, President of the Republic of Cuba, to La Jornada:
“The most failed act of the United States governments in these 67 years of Revolution is their inability to seize control of Cuba (…) Then came the blockade, the pressures of all these years (…) this failure has provoked anger.”
Not having collapsed, not having yielded to the anger and pressure of the emperor of the day (as others did): that is the great merit of the current Cuban government, heir to the revolutionary process and guarantor of its continuity; a merit that would be impossible to recognize in a “failed” government or state.
[1] Woodward, Susan, Taylor, Mark (2005). Fragile States: Sovereignty, Development and Conflict. Madrid: Center for Peace Research (CIP-FUHEM). p. 5
[2] Tokatlian, Gabriel (2008). The Construction of a Failed State in World Politics: The Case of Relations between the United States and Colombia. p. 68
[3] Holsti, Kalevi J. “The State, the War and the State of War”. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, p. 82. 1996
[4] The adjectives are Julio Fernández Bulté’s, referring to another decrepit emperor, the Roman Claudius.
[5] http://laventana.casa.cult.cu/index.php/2021/11/15/cuba-estado-fallido/
