Reactions to Fidel Castro

The death of the infamous Cuban leader Fidel Castro sparked a wide range of reactions.

In the United States, it was marked by widespread celebration. Many Americans understood Castro in the context of the brutal violence and oppression he inflicted upon the Cuban people. During his rule, he ordered the deaths of thousands of Cuban citizens via extra-judicial orders and was responsible for a number of human rights abuses. Many of the Cubans who had fled to the U.S. during his regime viewed his death as closure for both their suffering and the suffering of their friends and family.

In addition, Cubans now living in America viewed Castro as a wicked man who lied to them about the possibility of making their lives better under communism. Following the Cuban Revolution, Castro had used his passion, charisma, and promises of prosperity to rally the Cuban people after overthrowing the U.S.-backed dictator Fulgencio Batista. As it turns out, a number of Castro’s policies did more to harm the Cuban people than to help them. As former Florida Governor Jeb Bush argued, Cuba in the absence of Castro can now be “truly free and democratic.”

However, several international figures, such as French President Francois Hollande, mourned Castro’s death, praising him as a “towering figure in the 20th Century.” Vladimir Putin of Russia, Jacob Zuma of South Africa, Rafael Correa of Ecuador, Evo Morales of Bolivia, Nicolas Maduro of Venezuela, and former U.S.S.R. leader Mikhail Gorbachev have also publicly displayed their appreciation for Castro. In particular, his supporters praise him as a champion of socialism and anti-imperialism whose revolutionary regime secured Cuba's independence from American domination.

The question that remains: do the people of Cuba still admire and support Castro as much as they did during his revolution 57 years ago? It might appear so. Reports from Cuba have produced only messages of mourning and sadness over the death of their beloved “Commandante.” But, the Cuban state controls the media, so it is likely that dissenting opinions would be quashed.

Moving forward, the United States can allow its strained relations with Cuba to die alongside Castro. After giving the Cuban people time to mourn their “Commandante,” U.S. leaders should attempt to foster friendlier relations and help the country move in a more positive direction. As a result of Castro’s anti-globalization policies, Cuba is still stuck in the 1960s. With the help of America and the rest of the world, it can finally enter the 21st century.

Reflecting on Communism After Castro

In the wake of Cuban dictator Fidel Castro’s death, it’s time for the world to be reminded of a very important truth. Communism doesn’t work. While the philosophy seems popular among

young millennials, most of them were not even alive during the most recent periods of

communist oppression to see its horrors and failures. Not only is it economically unfeasible, but

in nearly every modern communist state, its governing structure has led to the immense

suffering of the people. In smaller communistic societies where violence was not employed, the communities have rarely lasted more than a generation or two before they dissolved on account of tension with members’ human desires to work for themselves and own property. History shows that communism always fails.

Cuba happens to be a prime example. Castro’s guerrilla army overthrew the government of Cuba by force in the late 1950s, installing a communist regime. Once his regime was in place, he resorted to violence to keep power. His enemies often met their ends with non-judicial

sentences, firing squads, and assassinations. Thousands of individuals died. An estimated 78,000 more died attempting to escape the Castro regime. In total, more than 1.5 million fled Cuba, seeking asylum in the United States and other countries.

Beyond Cuba, plenty more examples of communist oppression occur in recent history.

The Soviet Union similarly mistreated its people, leading to the deaths of millions of citizens.

After emerging from behind the Iron Curtain, many of the formerly Soviet-dominated nations are still struggling to find their ground, economically and culturally, more than two and a half decades later.

Just looking at the attitudes of the citizens of those countries toward communism, one can see – as I did during my recent semester in Poland – exactly how they felt that system failed them. The Polish people in particular have vehemently anti-communist attitudes. Their country has found itself the object of Russian aggression for centuries, and they received horrid treatment under the Soviets, including being subjected to famine and frequent shortages, and to violence when they tried to gain any semblance of control.

Communism fails on a smaller scale as well. It can only be successful when all members of society are active, willing participants. Interest tends to wane.

Upstate New York, for example, has had its fair share of communistic societies. The “Burned-Over District,” site of arguably the greatest religious revival during the Second Great Awakening, had a high number of religious communal societies. The Oneida Community, not far to the west of Hamilton College, is a major example. Now known for their silverware empire, the Oneida Community began as a religious communal society in 1848. It remained successful for years as new members continued to join. However, the next generation of Oneidans, most of whom were brought to the commune by their parents, became disenchanted with the community’s ideals. They disbanded it in 1881.

The Oneida Community is not alone in this problem. Often, children who grow up subjected to communist ideals, much like anyone forced to live under a flawed system of

governance, become disaffected. This disaffection is also prevalent in large-scale communist societies – including Cuba, for the many who fled and among many who couldn’t leave. Almost anyone old enough to remember living under the Castro regime has terrible memories of it, and thus abhors the principle of communism.

Now, after Fidel Castro’s death, we should stop to reflect on his legacy of violence

and hate. Although he is gone, his brother Raul still reigns, continuing his legacy. Although some changes have been made in Cuba’s economy at times, the Cuban people are still suffering. We can only hope its condition will improve soon, and that the death of Castro can help to bring positive change.

The Italian Referendum: Strike Three Against Globalization?

Following the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union and the election of Donald Trump, a “no” vote in Italy’s upcoming constitutional referendum could further agitate the international order.

Over the past few months, the American elections have left little space for substantial media coverage of the December 4 referendum. If approved by Italian voters, the measure would increase the power of the lower house of parliament, the Chamber of Deputies. Additionally, it would relegate the Senate to an advisory role, similar to that of the House of Lords in the UK, and reduce the number of senators from 315 to 100. Therefore, the party that controls the Chamber of Deputies would gain more power. Currently, Prime Minister Matteo Renzi’s center-left Partito Democratico (PD) controls a majority of seats.

Renzi claims that the constitutional changes would enable him to implement a number of economic reforms to revive the ailing Italian economy. He has pledged to resign if the referendum fails to pass. The prime minister is a staunch supporter of European Union policies, and a “no” vote would be an outright rejection of not only his leadership, but the EU and the Euro as well.

Proponents of the referendum argue that the constitutional reforms are necessary to kickstart economic growth. According to Lorenzo Codogno, the former chief economist of the Italian Treasury, these reforms “would allow the government to regain certain key responsibilities, which would make the public administration more effective.”

A rejection of the proposal would increase the political standing of the populist Five Star Movement (M5S). The leader of M5S, comedian Beppe Grillo, has called for Italy to withdraw from the Euro and return to its own former currency, the Lira. An “Ital-Leave” from the Eurozone would threaten the stability of the Euro and the overall European monetary system.

In February of this year, around 60 percent of voters expressed a favorable opinion of the constitutional changes. Polls now appear to indicate a “no” vote, with slightly more than half of voters opposed. Nonetheless, the past year has clearly shown that polls are often wrong.

But markets, too, are currently predicting a rejection of the proposal. Italy’s Target2 balance, or its real-time gross settlement system, shows a tremendous capital flight from the country over the past few months. A “no” vote next week would almost certainly devalue the Euro and increase capital flow into American markets (strengthening the U.S. dollar even further).

Given the current economic conditions in Italy, rejection of the referendum and the political establishment would come as no surprise. According to the International Monetary Fund, real income per capita in Italy is 12 percent less than in 2007, just before the global financial crisis. Unemployment continues to hover around 11 percent, while youth unemployment is 40 percent (50 percent in southern regions). According to Eurostat, government debt is 133 percent of GDP.

Furthermore, Italy has grown much more slowly than other EU members since the end of the recession. The appalling economic conditions have created the ideal conditions for populist movements. Like their counterparts in the United States and Britain, working-class Italians feel alienated from the political establishment. The idea of a group of German bureaucrats sitting around in Brussels, crafting the nation’s economic policy, does not appeal to unemployed blue-collar Italians. They believe that the parliamentary reforms will give them more say in Italy’s economy than they currently have under the EU, which is dominated by representatives from other European countries. Despite such concerns, only time will tell if a rejection of the referendum produces an overall positive outcome for the Italian people.

Bad News for India?

Millions of Americans stayed up late to watch the election returns on November 8. Halfway around the world, Indians were also awake, as Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced sweeping changes in the country’s monetary policy. At around midnight, he declared that 500 and 1000 rupee notes, worth about $7.50 and $15, will no longer be accepted as legal tender.

The changes effectively cancel roughly 22 billion notes spread across India, stuffed in coin purses, stored under mattresses, and used in under-the-table deals. These notes are 86 percent of all circulating cash. Modi stated that this recall is meant to curb the use of “black money” and to reduce widespread government corruption. People have until the end of the year (less than 40 days) to exchange their current notes, at banks and ATMs, for new ones.

In addition to new 500 and 1000 rupee currency, the Reserve Bank of India is introducing new 2000 rupee notes, worth about 30 U.S. dollars.

The uncertainty of India’s cash-based economy has economists worried about the security of its future foreign investments and unforeseen repercussions on citizens.

This disruptive move is not unprecedented. It follows a similar decision of the European Central Bank, which recently phased out 500 euro “mega notes” due to concerns about illegal immigration, corruption, and the fallout from the terrorist attacks in Paris. Countries in crisis have also used such a monetary policy before: Germany after World War II, the Soviet Union on the brink of collapse, and Zimbabwe drowning in hyperinflation have all issued currency callbacks. But the policy does not signal India’s economic strength to foreign investors.

Kaushik Basu, a former chief economist at the World Bank, categorizes this currency move as “bad economics.” The ban on most of the existing currency immediately triggered a run on banks and ATMs, forcing individuals to wait in line for hours to exchange the equivalent of, at most, about $30. The banks simply did not have enough bills.

While people still have until the end of the year to exchange their currency, the current notes are essentially worthless. Merchants and shop owners are reluctant to accept the larger banned bills, as they no longer have smaller notes for change, thanks to the bank runs. The government’s move seems to do little to fight corruption, but it is already negatively affecting the nation’s law- abiding citizens.

The Reserve Bank of India’s contention that the policy will reduce the use of “black money” and fight corruption may be true in the near future. Looking further ahead, however, criminals will simply store their “black money” in the new currency as soon as it is available. Moreover, the addition of the larger 2000 rupee notes makes storing illegal currency even easier.

The mandate to exchange old bills for new ones also creates a new black market. Take, for example, this plausible scenario: an individual approaches a farmer or shopkeeper (or some equally hard-working, honest person) and offers to change the latter’s 500 and 1000 rupee notes for new ones. But there is a catch: the farmer will get only 800 rupees for the 1000 rupee note. As economist Prabhat Patnaik describes it: the government’s move shows “a lack of understanding of capitalism … Consequently, instead of curbing black business it will actually give rise to the proliferation of black business.”

There are no obvious significant repercussions on the global economy as a whole. It is not difficult to imagine spooked foreign investors holding their money if the Reserve Bank of India indicates there might be more surprise currency actions, but this seems improbable given the unlikelihood of positive results from the current one. Moreover, the new monetary regulations will directly affect only people’s cash reserves, not money stored in investments.

Unfortunately, however, the currency change is negatively affecting tourism. International visitors typically withdraw cash just before their arrival or upon arrival. Now, ATMs and banks across the country have little or no cash to give out. Additionally, some tourists who are currently travelling have either run out of cash or are relying on debit cards that are scarcely accepted by locals. For a country that relies heavily on tourism, stranded foreigners are not a great advertisement.

In addition to its likely minuses for the population and the economy, this currency reform does not seem productive or effective for the Indian government. Many economists agree that the costs will greatly outpace the limited benefits. Even if there do turn out to be few negative results, the exchange is a lot of hassle for no gain in the battle against corruption.

Duterte: A Disaster for the Philippines

Following the regime of dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the People Power Revolution of 1986, along with the election of Corazon Aquino, ushered in a sense of optimism in democracy and political stability for the Philippines. However, corruption and cronyism have persisted until the present day. High poverty rates, crime, and little economic growth continue to plague the country’s people. According to a recent report from CNN, the vast majority of Filipino politicians come from political dynasties, and 76% of new economic growth in the past few years has gone to the 40 most affluent families. Additionally, the Philippines has dealt with a number of external conflicts over the past decade. China continues to increase its geopolitical power in Southeast Asia and threatens valuable Philippine maritime territory in the South China Sea. These factors have created the conditions for a power vacuum, legitimizing another questionable “strongman” leader touting the mantra of political stability and domestic order.

Earlier this year, the Philippines elected Rodrigo Duterte to serve as president. Duterte, a member of the Philippine Democratic Party-Power of the People (PDP-Laban), served as mayor of Davao City for 22 years. While in office as mayor, he implemented a “tough on crime” approach against alleged criminals and drug dealers in Davao City. Duterte is rumored to have played an instrumental role in the Davao Death Squad (DDS). This vigilante group was responsible for extrajudicial killings of more than 700 people from 1998 to 2008. (Duterte denies any affiliation with the DDS.) Davao City, a city of one million people in the southern province of Mindanao, still has one of the highest crime rates in the Philippines despite Duterte’s crime policies as mayor.

Despite the allegations of involvement in the death squad, Duterte still won by a large margin in the Philippine presidential election in May. The election had a record voter turnout of 81%. Duterte received 16.6 million votes (38.6%), followed by about 10 million votes (23.4%) for Mar Roxas. Senator Grace Poe came in third place with 21.7% of the vote. Since then, the number of extrajudicial killings has skyrocketed in Duterte’s war on drugs. According to data released by the Philippine National Police last month, vigilantes have killed 1,391 people. Based on his actions in the past few months, it is evident that Duterte will not bring much-needed political stability to the Philippines, but will preside over a reign of terror, potentially throwing the country back into undemocratic chaos. He even stated in August: “I don’t care about human rights, believe me.” He has also threatened to declare martial law in the event that political opposition attempts to halt his crime policies.

Earlier this fall, President Obama raised concerns about the extrajudicial killings resulting from his policies, but Duterte fired back: “I am no American puppet. I am the President of a sovereign country and I am not answerable to anyone except the Filipino people [...] son of a bitch I will swear at you.” The new president has a long record of making extreme statements. He once referred to the Pope as a “son of a whore” and the U.S. ambassador to the Philippines as a “gay son of a whore.” At a recent press conference, Duterte revealed plans to cut ties with the U.S. and align the Philippines with China and Russia. He has created a frighteningly erratic political environment in the Philippines, and another Marcos-style dictatorship may materialize in the coming years.

Anti-Trump Riots

Broken glass lines the windows of shops, and graffiti covers walls, as smoke rises from the remnants of trashcan fires. Rather than a post-apocalyptic film scene, this is the work of protests against President-Elect Donald Trump in Portland, Oregon.

Following a significant level of violence, the police declared the protests a riot. Rioters damaged a car park and threw objects at police who attempted to quell the violence. Reports claim rioters attacked drivers in their cars and shut down the I-5 and I-84 freeways. At least 29 people were arrested.

Though Portland saw the brunt of violent activity, protests in other major cities caused trouble as well. Protesters in Baltimore sat in the streets, blocking traffic during rush hour. In Minneapolis, they blocked freeways, halting traffic both ways for upwards of an hour. In Los Angeles, they blocked a major highway and burned an effigy of Trump. One protester stated, “people have to die to make a change in this world.”

While violence in reaction to Trump’s election has come from relatively few people, a hypocritical current seems to runs through the anti-Trump side. Just last week, the media criticized Trump supporters who said they would protest should Hillary Clinton win what they believed to be a rigged election. However, as Trump gained the necessary 270 electoral votes, Clinton’s most vehement supporters began doing exactly, or more than, what they lambasted those Trump backers for suggesting. They not only took to the streets, but caused disarray and chaos.

Trump won at least 290 (and with Michigan, probably 306) electoral votes due to narrow margins in Florida, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. The last two states were surprising wins, especially since neither has supported a Republican presidential candidate since the 1980s. Clinton leads in the popular vote by .2 percent at the moment, having won California and New York by amounts larger than the entire voting populations of many states. Her popular-vote margin is likely to grow, perhaps substantially, once all of California’s ballots are counted. Trump, however, apparently won 30 states to Clinton’s 20, often by margins comparable to hers in California and New York.

Many Clinton supporters have expressed their anger about the result online. The slogan “not my president” has permeated social media, and petitions have appeared on change.org demanding that the Electoral College either elect Clinton or be abolished.

Protesters, both online and in the streets, give the impression of wanting to undermine the democratic process. Their refusal to accept the results, even though they were due partly to lower Democratic turnout in key states compared with 2012, suggests an unwillingness to tolerate diversity in politics. Had the election swung the opposite way, surely Clinton supporters would be telling Trump supporters to accept the results and move on, as they had said for weeks, anticipating her win.

Nevertheless, they engaged in the same response they mocked Trump supporters for considering. In addition, many have verbally and physically harassed and intimidated those who voted for Trump, refusing to acknowledge that many Republicans cast their ballots for economic and foreign policies rather than Trump himself. Shockingly, not all Republicans think alike. In addition, racism and homophobia are not the fundamental reasons why he won.

Furthermore, it is not as if one man has the power to undermine centuries of American progress. The president is checked by Congress and the court system. The social policies so many people fear Republicans will pursue lack both the support of the entire Republican coalition and the supermajority in the Senate necessary to pass them.

No matter how upsetting you may find the results of the election, protests and violence are not the way to enact positive political change. If you want change, get out and vote in two years. Encourage your friends to vote. Do your research and advocate for the candidate you think best fits your beliefs. America has survived through well over 200 years of presidents, some great, some not so great. Three of them, or four counting Trump, did not win the popular vote. Some elections were even more aggressively contested than this one. Nevertheless, America is still here, and in four years’ time, America will still be here.